Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Belfast, West, in the room of the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway, M.B.E., who was at the time of his election, and is, disabled from sitting in this House by reason of the fact that, having been ordained a Priest according to the use of the Church of Ireland, he received episcopal ordination.—[Mr. Buchan Hepburn.]

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite, Sir Stanley Holmes, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Messer, Mr. Mort, Mr. Oliver, Brigadier Prior-Palmer, Brigadier Rayner, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Touche and Mr. Viant to be Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

"Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau"

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider republishing the despatch covering the escape of the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" from Brest during the last war, together with all additional information on this episode in the possession of his Department, the Air Ministry and the War Office, in view of the offence given to the people of this country by the propaganda recently put out by the Soviet Ministry of Marine, particularly to the relatives of those members of His Majesty's Forces who lost their lives in that action.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): The Report of the board of inquiry which was published in 1946 as Command 6775 is

still available from the Stationery Office. The Report refutes any suggestion that we deliberately allowed the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" to escape, and the board of inquiry stated that they were impressed by the evident determination of all our forces to press home their attacks.
I have seen only newspaper summaries of the article in "Red Fleet," but if they are accurate, then that journal only besmirches its own record. It does nothing to touch the honour of those who died in fighting a gallant but unsuccessful action.

Property (Malicious Damage)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many cases of suspected sabotage have occurred to Royal Navy property or equipment in the last six months.

Mr. Callaghan: There have been 11 acts of malicious damage in His Majesty's ships and establishments during the last six months, but the circumstances do not point to a planned campaign of sabotage.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any of the findings on the explosion at Bedenham are likely to be made public at all, and, in particular, whether anybody is incriminated to any extent?

Mr. Speaker: This Question asks only how many cases have occurred. It is not about proceedings being made public.

Branch Officers (Promotion)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the prospects for the promotion of branch officers to lieutenant.

Mr. Callaghan: Most branch officers who serve to the age of 50 become lieutenants before reaching that age. In the past three years under one per cent. have failed to do so.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many branch officers, to my knowledge, are feeling very insecure about promotion to lieutenant in view of the fact that they have to wait a very long time, apparently, before being considered, and that they are then old to be lieutenants, which makes them unsuitable for further promotion?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry to hear that, because in fact 99 per cent. of them do attain this rank before they retire. There is not a great deal of insecurity that they need worry about.

Pensions

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what improvements are proposed in the rates of naval pensions.

Mr. Callaghan: This matter is under consideration.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that, although the improved rates of pay have led to improved recruiting for the Navy, the skilled artificers, when they get to reasonable rank, are unwilling to stay on but would rather retire, not because of the pay, but because of the insufficient pension?

Shore Establishments (White Ensign)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what ship's name is attached to Queen Anne's Mansions, S.W.1, in view of the fact that it flies the White Ensign and not the Admiralty flag.

Mr. Callaghan: None. Sir. The White Ensign may, with Admiralty approval, be worn ashore on buildings used for naval purposes. Such establishments need not necessarily be independently commissioned.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is not this naval establishment flying the White Ensign, and may it not, therefore, be expected to have flying somewhere a commissioning pennant? If not, is this because it is regarded as a tender, suitable to be hoisted up and carried on board some other stone frigate in London?

Air Commodore Harvey: Would the hon. Gentleman say when this building will be derequisitioned?

Mr. Callaghan: When the "ship" is "decommissioned."

Commander Galbraith: Is it not a fact that the people employed in this establishment are borne on the books of H.M.S. "President"?

Mr. Callaghan: I believe that to be so.

Royal Corps of Naval Constructors (Pay)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he expects to make a statement on the pay of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The revised scales of pay of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, fixed on the basis described by my right hon. Friend the late Parliamentary Secretary on 19th October, 1949, were promulgated to all concerned in February, 1950. Since then the Government have decided to put into operation the recommendations of the Chorley Committee on the level of Civil Service salaries, and the scales of salary in the higher reaches of the Corps are subject to adjustment for this.

Commander Noble: Could the Civil Lord tell us anything about the entry of these officers now? He told my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), on 26th July that there had been two resignations and no entries so far this year. If we are to have the new construction we must have the best officers.

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to put that question down. All he has asked about is the pay.

Commander Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman also give consideration to the question of officers of the Chief Inspector of Ordnance, who are in very much the same boat; and will the Admiralty give consideration to bringing their pay into line with modern ideas?

Mr. Edwards: That point will be noted.

Commander Galbraith: Can the hon. Gentleman say by what percentage the pay of officers of the Corps has been increased since the end of the war?

Mr. Edwards: That has already been stated to the House.

Recruiting Staff (Pay and Conditions)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the pay and conditions of the Naval Recruiting Service.

Mr. Callaghan: Revised pay and conditions for ratings employed in the Naval Recruiting Service, effective from the 1st September, 1950, have been announced. With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Revised terms for the officers are not finally settled.

Commander Noble: When does the Parliamentary Secretary think they will come to a decision on this matter, which has been going on for a very long time?

Mr. Callaghan: I have made a special announcement of the ratings because it has been going on a long time. We will try to get it through as quickly as we can.

Following is the statement:

I. FUTURE ENTRIES

1. Entry.—In future entry is to be restricted to men who have completed 22 years' pensionable service, and who have held at least the rank of petty officer or sergeant Royal Marines for at least five years continuously. Such men are to be re-engaged or re-enlisted on an active service basis as recruiters for five years, and may be allowed to continue in the recruiting service, up to the age of 55, if required for so long.

2. Rank.—The ratings of petty officer recruiter and chief petty officer recruiter, and Royal Marine ranks of sergeant recruiter and colour sergeant recruiter are to be instituted. All entries into the recruiting Service will be as petty officer recruiter or sergeant recruiter, and promotion to chief petty officer recruiter or colour sergeant recruiter will be given after five years satisfactory service in the Recruiting Service, subject to recommendation.

3. Pay.—Special rates of pay have been approved for ratings and other ranks of the Recruiting Service as follows:

Petty Officer or Sergeant Recruiter
Chief Petty Officer or Colour Sergeant Recruiter


Daily rate
Daily rate


s.
d.
s.
d.


Basic pay 15
0
17
6

Badge Pay as for general service ratings will be payable in addition.

Progressive Pay will be at the rate of 6d. a day for each period of four years' Service in the rating, as for general service ratings. The pay of general service ratings and other ranks Royal Marines transferred to the Recruiting

Service will be based upon the above rates for petty officer or sergeant recruiter, irrespective of any higher rate of pay received while in general service.

4. Marriage Allowance, Qualifying Allotment, Ration Allowance, Lodging Allowance and London Allowance.—To be at Royal Naval general service rates, and payable under the same regulations.

5. Pensions.—Time in the Recruiting Service will count for increase of pension under normal rules, and consequently pension will not be payable concurrently with full pay.

II. ASSIMILATION OF EXISTING PENSIONER RECRUITERS

1. The pensions of existing pensioner recruiters are to be suspended from 31st August, 1950, and they are to be transferred to the rates of pay shown in Part I, paragraph 3, with effect from 1st September, 1950. Pensioner recruiters who have already completed five years' satisfactory service in the Recruiting Service are to be promoted to chief petty officer recruiter or colour sergeant recruiter with effect from 1st September, 1950, and placed on the appropriate rate of pay from that date. Those who have not yet completed five years' satisfactory service should be promoted when they do so.

Progressive Pay.—Service for progressive pay will count from 1st September, 1950, or date of promotion, if later.

Badge Pay, Marriage Allowance, Qualifying Allotment, Ration Allowance, Lodging Allowance, and London Allowance.—Payment is to commence from 1st September, 1950, under the same conditions as for general service ratings, as laid down in Part I, paragraphs 3 and 4, above.

2. Re-assessment of Pensions.—Further service in the Recruiting Service from 1st September, 1950, will count for increase of pension. The details have not yet been settled.

3. Implementation.—The existing pensioner recruiters are to be transferred to active service conditions forthwith, and the revised rates of pay and allowances issued to them as soon as possible.

Anti-Submarine Training

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether submarines with fast submerged


speeds are now freely available for training exercises with anti-submarine flotillas.

Mr. Callaghan: A number of fast submarines are available, but I shall not be satisfied until we have more.

Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to hear that, but the Parliamentary Secretary did tell the House the other day that he was giving the utmost priority to new devices for anti-submarine warfare, and I hope that those new devices will not be available to crews who cannot be trained because of the lack of targets.

Retained Personnel (Period of Service)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what date he anticipates that naval personnel now due for pension, but whose services have been retained owing to the present emergency, will be released.

Mr. Callaghan: I fully sympathise with the natural wish of those retained or recalled to know for how long their services will be wanted, and whilst I cannot give a definite date, it is my noble Friend's intention to make an announcement at the earliest possible moment.

Mrs. Middleton: Will my hon. Friend see that the men concerned are themselves given as long notice as possible, because to my certain knowledge men among my own constituents have already lost civilian jobs for which they had contracted before the notice for their retention was made.

Mr. Callaghan: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and it is my strong desire that we should give them a definite period as soon as it is possible to do so.

Devonport Dockyard (Suspensions)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men have been suspended in Devonport Dockyard because of Communist activities or associations; and over what periods such suspensions have been in operation.

Mr. W. Edwards: Two men have been suspended in Devonport Dockyard because of alleged Communist activities or associations. The first has been sus-

pended since 15th September and the second since 27th October.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that quite alarmist reports have been circulating in the area regarding this matter, and that the reassuring reply he has given me will be received with great satisfaction throughout the area, and particularly in the dockyard?

Lord Dunglass: Can the suspension of a Communist each month be described as "reassuring"?

Mr. Fernyhough: Are these men still receiving their wages?

Mr. Edwards: At the moment they are, whilst we are considering whether we can find other employment for them or whether we have to discharge them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Amateurs

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Postmaster-General why he has not permitted amateur television in the 420–460 megacycles band as used by United States of America and Dutch amateurs, and why he has not permitted operations in the 1215–1300 megacycles band which is reserved exclusively for amateur operation by international agreement.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): The band 420–460 megacycles is recognised internationally as primarily for the use of aeronautical radio navigational services, and the band 1215–1300 megacycles is needed to meet certain national defence requirements.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this body of amateurs forms a most enthusiastic band of technicians who may be badly needed in a future emergency, as they were in the last; ought we not, therefore, to move heaven and earth to try to provide them with facilities to enable them to carry on their work? In order to avoid wasting the time of the House in discussing technical matters, would the Postmaster-General now agree to meet a deputation on this matter, which has been under consideration for a year and a half?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am very anxious to meet the opinion of what may be a very important section of the community,


and I should welcome an opportunity of discussing it with the hon. Member.

Scotland

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General when building of the new Scottish television station is to commence; and when the station is likely to begin operating.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Building has already commenced, and the B.B.C. hopes that the station will be brought into service by about the end of 1951.

Mr. Stewart: In view of the expectations of the Scottish people, is it not possible for the commencement of that station to be advanced substantially from that far off date?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is really a matter for the B.B.C. I have gone into the matter with them, and I cannot see that it is physically possible to make greater speed than that provided in the time schedule quoted.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States of America they can build and bring into operation a new television station in three months, and have done so; and is this not, therefore, an unnecessary delay in bringing in the Scottish and other regional television stations?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no obligation upon me to defend the day-to-day policy of the B.B.C. in this matter. I understand, however, that in America the area covered by their stations is very much smaller than the one proposed for Scotland.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will this station have its own studios to make its own Scottish television, or will it merely be relaying English programmes?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In view of the many functions which will have to be televised in connection with the Festival of Britain, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some steps should be taken to try to advance the date to include that period when the Festival of Britain is operating all over Scotland as well as in London?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I will certainly convey the sentiments of the House to the B.B.C., but it is primarily their responsibility.

Wales

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement regarding the provision of a television service for West Wales.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Until we have had experience of the high-power station near Cardiff it is not certain what areas of West Wales will be unable to receive the service. The question will be carefully considered in the light of that experience.

Mr. Donnelly: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in rural areas, where we do not always have the advantages of modern entertainment, this matter is of considerable importance, and will he press on with it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I shall look at it with sympathy.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when the transmitter near Cardiff will be brought into being?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is another question.

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Postmaster-General what has been delaying the final decision concerning the actual site of the television station near Cardiff.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There have been local objections to the use of the site originally selected at St. Nicholas, Glamorgan, and the B.B.C. is at present negotiating for the use of an alternative site about a mile away.

Mr. Llewellyn: Would the right hon. Gentleman say by whom these local objections have been made?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. The objection has been made by the Cardiff Rural District Council on the grounds of amenities and of misuse of agricultural land.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postal Addresses, Lancashire

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Postmaster-General for what reason it is necessary in writing to the Lancashire town of Chadderton to incorporate the name Oldham in the postal address.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Oldham is the post town for a large area of the urban district of Chadderton, and its inclusion in the postal address of that area is necessary for the speedy and efficient delivery of correspondence.

Mr. Hale: After six months of desultory, discursive and distressing correspondence, could my hon. Friend tell me why, in view of the fact that the democratically-minded representatives of Chadderton have unanimously decided that this is detrimental to their interests, Chadderton could not be called Lancashire 17, 13 or 91, or give it some number, and let it have the individuality of the thriving industrial township which it is?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I imagine that other parts of my hon. Friend's constituency would raise very vigorous objections to that.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Postmaster-General give an assurance that postal efficiency and convenience will never be sacrificed to Chadderton prejudice?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Are we to consider from this Question that there is something prejudicial in having Oldham connected with this name?

Mr. Hale: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, is also the Member for Chadderton, which is a large thriving industrial township, which has a right to its identity, and which asks for that right? Will my right hon. Friend face this quite serious question that Oldham has nothing to do with Chadderton, and that, therefore, what Oldham thinks about Chadderton has nothing to do with the question at all; and will he not reconsider this matter?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If Chadderton is prepared to accept a less efficient service and delay in the delivery of letters, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.

Mr. L. Hale: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the practice of incorporating and requiring the incorporation in the postal address of some Lancashire towns of the name of the adjoining larger town is one which is to the disadvantage and detriment of the smaller towns; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This practice, which is not confined to Lancashire, serves to ensure an efficient postal service and could only be changed to its detriment.

Redundant Staff, Harrogate

Mr. York: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that when work on the conversion of loans recommences he will re-employ as many as possible of those civil servants who have been declared redundant and are at present unemployed in the Harrogate area.

Mr. Ness Edwards: All redundant staff, on discharge, are advised to register at the local office of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, if they desire further employment. Whenever vacancies arise in the Post Office for temporary staff, the Ministry is notified and takes previous service into account in submitting candidates.

Mr. York: That is not a very satisfactory answer. Could not the Postmaster-General say quite definitely that these people, who have rendered good service to the country in the past, should be reemployed as soon as this new conversion issue is started?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I agree with the principle that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but this is the general practice which has been agreed to. Representatives of the unions concerned have agreed to this practice, and this is the one we are carrying on.

Collections

21. Mr. Keeling: asked the Postmaster-General when the later collections which he promised on 12th July will begin.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I hope it will be provided in many towns early in the New Year.

Air Mail (Periodicals)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Postmaster-General if better air mail facilities can be provided for British periodicals between this country and the Commonwealth and Empire.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Periodicals can now be sent at reduced rates of postage by air mail to all British Commonwealth countries outside Europe.

Mr. Watkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the difficulty of certain delays in the air service, which means that periodicals are out of date by the time that they reach certain countries? If I give him details, will he be kind enough to look into this matter?

Mr. Ness Edwards: With pleasure.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING

Interference, Dover and Deal Area

Mr. John Arbuthnot: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to interference, which is making reception of the Home Service programme of the British Broadcasting Corporation difficult in the Dover and Deal area, particularly in the evenings; and what steps he is taking to correct the trouble.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir; the interference with the B.B.C. Home Service on 330.4 metres is due to a foreign broadcasting station. Representations have been made to the administration concerned.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Would the Minister let us know which station is concerned?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The position is this, that representations have been made to Russia, whose station is interfering.

Frequency Modulation

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the current expenditure on frequency modulation; and whether it is the intention of the Government to pursue this work.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As part of its general research effort, the B.B.C. is investigating the relative merits of both frequency and amplitude modulated broadcasting on very high frequencies by experimental transmissions from the station at Wrotham. The current cost is about £20,000 a year. I am satisfied that broadcasting on these frequencies should be developed to relieve the congestion in the lower frequency bands, but I cannot say whether amplitude or frequency modulation will be used until the B.B.C.'s experiments with both methods of transmission have been concluded.

Royal Commission (Report)

Mr. L. Hale: asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on 24th October.

Mr. Hale: While not knowing off-hand the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member, might I ask him to bear in mind that there is some public anxiety in this matter? Even in another place there has been a temporary display of interest. Would my right hon. Friend urge on the Commission the desirability of making an early report?

Mr. Morrison: I asked for the report by the end of the year, and I have no particular reason to think that it will not be available by then.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Directory (Cornwall)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Postmaster-General why the classified, trades and professions, telephone directory for Bristol. Exeter, Taunton and Plymouth areas was recently distributed to business telephone subscribers when in error it included very few telephone numbers in Cornwall other than those of co-operative societies.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This was due to a misunderstanding which I regret. The previous issue of the classified directory, made before the war, did not include Cornwall. It had been intended that the new issue should include Cornwall, but it was not appreciated until after distribution had begun that the particulars made available to the compilers of the directory were incomplete. Of some 1,000 entries relating to Cornwall. 42 were in respect of co-operative societies.

Mr. Wilson: Should not the Postmaster-General's Department have discovered this mistake had been made before their officials delivered the directories to subscribers?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is done by contract outside the Post Office. I agree that


we have some responsibility for it, and anything which I can do to put the matter right I will do.

Mr. Coldrick: Is the Minister aware that a number of co-operative societies were omitted as well as private traders?

Delayed Applications

Mr. John Tilney: asked the Postmaster-General what is the nature of the more urgent work which prevents 41,000 applicants for telephones being served by equipment available.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Provision of service in priority cases has first claim on the limited capital resources available for connecting up new subscribers, and the heavy pressure of work on such cases is holding up completion of other applications.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that there are now still about 18,000 unemployed on Merseyside, and cannot lie do something locally to benefit these unemployed and also to help the subscribers who are waiting for the equipment which is now available?

Mr. Ness Edwards: In many parts of the country I am extremely short of skilled engineers, and I am afraid that I cannot find them on Merseyside.

Selby Area

Colonel Ropner: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that a large number of potential subscribers are waiting for telephones in the Selby area, his Department is taking any steps to extend the telephone exchange and add to the number of underground cables.

Mr. Ness Edwards: A new exchange and additional cables should be ready for service in the urban area by next summer, and additional cables are being planned for the rural area.

Colonel Ropner: Will this be considered as a matter of great urgency, because a number of residents in the rural and urban districts of Selby have been waiting for telephones for a matter of years?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. We are putting in not the usual standard automatic exchange but a rather sub-standard one to meet the need as quickly as we can.

Cardiff

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones are still outstanding in Cardiff; and whether any steps have been taken in recent months for all schools in Cardiff to be equipped with telephones.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There are 3,879 for the four exchanges serving Cardiff. So far as I am aware, there are no outstanding applications for school telephones in this area.

Mr. Llewellyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting with the Minister of Education, with a view to seeing that schools, not only in Cardiff, are equipped with telephones, before some child loses its life as a result of difficulty in contacting hospitals and other services?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No. Sir. The obligation is on the local authority to make this application. When it does, it will certainly have preferential consideration.

Mr. Llewellyn: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some initiative in this matter in view of the difficulties?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.

Deaf Persons (Amplifiers)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Postmaster-General what is the profit to the Post Office from providing deaf telephone subscribers with telephone amplifiers at 46s. a year; and if he will put the provision of telephone amplifiers out to public tender.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The charge for these amplifiers, which are purchased under competitive tender, is below the current costs of provision and maintenance. I am satisfied that the present arrangements for the provision of this service best serve the public interest.

Sir W. Smithers: Would it not be a good thing to try to get this service as cheaply as possible for these unfortunate people? By putting it out to public tender that would make it cheaper.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is put out to public tender, and I regret to inform the House that I am losing a substantial sum of money on this already.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would the Postmaster-General tell us whether he is


arranging for an amplifier to amplify your voice, Mr. Speaker, so that it can be heard both down here and in the public gallery? There is a great feeling at the moment that the one person not successfully heard in this new House is Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is not a matter for me; it is for Mr. Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Recruits

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many recruits have joined the Royal Air Force since the increase in the rates of pay; and how these figures compare with a similar period last year.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Eight thousand, two hundred and seventy men and women enlisted in the R.A.F. in September and October this year compared with 2,664 in those months last year. These figures do not include those Regulars already in the Service who have extended their current engagements or re-engaged.

Air Commodore Harvey: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how many National Service men have extended their engagements?

Mr. Henderson: A very great proportion of the figures which I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman apply to National Service men who have taken regular engagements on call-up. In addition, about 1,000 have extended their service from National Service to regular engagements.

Auxiliary Force (Strength)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in officers and airmen.

Mr. A. Henderson: Seven hundred and thirty-five officers and 6,386 airmen and airwomen.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that these figures are very poor indeed, and that if he is going to man the radar stations and control units something has to be done? Will he consider

offering better amenities in the way of buildings and conditions for the Auxiliary Air Force?

Mr. Henderson: I am anxious to do what I can to improve the amenities. I would point out that as regards the 20 auxiliary squadrons, the percentage of strength to establishment is 72. As to the fighter control units, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we have only been recruiting for these units during the past 18 months, and during the past year we have had an increase of 1,800.

Night Fighter Squadrons

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent it is proposed to increase the number of the night fighter squadrons.

Mr. A. Henderson: As I stated in my speech on the Air Estimates this year, we are planning, not only to re-equip our night fighter squadrons with the latest types of jet night fighter aircraft, commencing next year, but also to increase the size of the night fighter force. This expansion, which will be very substantial, has already commenced, but it would not be in the public interest to give numbers.

>Radar Training

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in order to be able to place the coastal radar chain on a 24-hour basis at short notice, he will make a public appeal to all the men and women with wartime radar experience to attend refresher training courses.

Mr. A. Henderson: Publicity has already been given to the need for those with wartime radar and other experience to join the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, where there are increasing facilities for refresher training. I take the opportunity again of expressing the hope that as many as possible of those men and women will join the fighter control units of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Fighter control units are being placed under the control of Fighter Command as from tomorrow.
I should, however, like to state again that, in the event of an emergency, we shall be able to man the radar chain on a 24-hour basis at short notice. The necessary arrangements for doing so, by


recalling released men and women, are already in existence. In addition, I propose to make a special appeal, individually, to these men and women to join their nearest fighter control unit, or the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, in order to receive refresher training in peace-time.

Mr. Donner: In view of the very dangerous shortage of wireless electrical mechanics in the first year of the war, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is getting these men in substantial numbers now, or, alternatively, training them, because it is really impossible to work the coastal radar chain efficiently without them?

Mr. Henderson: I quite agree with what the hon. Member has said as to the difficulties, but I would point out again that we have our plans prepared, covering all the various trades required, in the event of having to man our radar stations on a 24-hour basis.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "short notice," when he says that this manning on a 24-hour basis can be carried out?

Mr. Henderson: I suggest it is about 48 hours.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Why has the right hon. Gentleman made the statement that the radar reporting units are expanding at a fast rate, when only one has been formed, and that is in London, and it has only 30 per cent. of its establishment? Why are there no other units in other parts of the country to man our radar reporting chain?

Mr. Henderson: I did not say that the fighter control units themselves are expanding at a fast rate. I said that the training facilities are being increased, which is a very different thing.

Mr. Donner: When the right hon. Gentleman has made appeals for personnel, the urgent need for wireless electrical mechanics has not so far been mentioned. Will he see that this is done?

Mr. Henderson: I will see that my appeals go to men in that trade.

Property and Equipment

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many cases of suspected sabotage have occurred to

Royal Air Force property or equipment in the last six months.

Mr. A. Henderson: None. Sir.

Contract, Manchester

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether a tender was put out before the contract was let to fly aircraft for Army cooperation work in the Manchester area and how long does the existing contract, let to a Liverpool firm, run.

Mr. A. Henderson: Competitive tenders were invited for Army Cooperation flying in a number of areas in February, 1949. The firm which secured the contract in the Manchester area terminated the engagement in March, 1950. Fresh tendering was not considered to be justified, and the contract was awarded to the second lowest firm in the original tendering. The present contract expires on 31st March, 1951.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are three charter firms in Manchester, and that they did not know of this tender having been put out? It seems a little unreasonable to import aircraft from Liverpool without the knowledge of the local Manchester firms.

Mr. Henderson: I have no doubt that the three firms had an opportunity of tendering in March, 1949.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Henderson: I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Fog Dispersal

Mr. George Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (1) when he will be in a position to make a statement following the reconsideration of the general question of Fog Investigation Dispersal Operations aid for landing in fog;
(2) whether he can give any information about the experiments being conducted into the possibilities of finding a cheaper form of Fog Investigation Dispersal Operations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): Experiments so far carried out indicate that an efficient and less expensive fog


dispersal system, using fuel oil delivered at high pressure, is almost certainly a technical possibility. Final checking of the experiment is now in hand, and when this is complete, it will be possible to consider whether there is justification for a full scale installation, having regard to the estimated capital cost of about £250,000. In the meantime, my Department is getting the views of airline operators on the use of F.I.D.O. as an alternative to the existing practice of weather diversion.

Mr. Ward: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that something in the neighbourhood of £600,000 has already been spent at Heathrow on the installation of a form of F.I.D.O.? Can he say whether it would not be possible to adapt the existing apparatus to use the new oil-burning one at very much less cost?

Mr. Beswick: I do not know where the hon. Member gets his figures from, but I will have it checked up if he will give me the details. It is not a fact that a system was installed at London Airport.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the experiments which were necessary for the development of the F.I.D.O. system during the war were planned most carefully so that the maximum number of operational units could be ready for the fogs of the autumn? Can he explain how it is that, after two years of investigation and experiment by his Department, they have been overtaken by the autumn fog season without reaching a decision?

Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about his facts. In the first place, experiments were not carried out by my Department, but by the Ministry of Supply. In the second place, I checked up on the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman last week, that this new system of fog dispersal was being tried out towards the end of the last war, and I found that not to be the fact. It is only comparatively recently that this new system has been developed.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he completely misunderstood my statement last week, which was to the effect that experiments on a cheaper form of F.I.D.O. were in full

swing? That is correct, because I was responsible for them. Is he further aware that the new system, which is a cheaper form depending on high-pressure burners and giving instantaneous light, was a further development we had in mind then, which he has had a long time for development? Is he aware that the experts who investigated this scheme have not been consulted by the Government in the last two years?

Mr. Beswick: This question of generating hot air is rather more complicated at airports than in other places. It is not a fact that the present system we are now discussing, and the installation of which we are now contemplating, was known at the end of the war. Experiments have only recently been concluded.

Mr. G. Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether Fog Investigation Dispersal Operations is available at Blackbushe airfield.

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir, and I am sorry that in my answer to a supplementary question on 1st November I gave the impression that it was. In fact, the F.I.D.O. facilities which I indicated were available are confined to Manston.

Mr. Ward: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how long it takes to turn on the apparatus at Manston? Can it be done very quickly, and, if so, why is it that the aircraft which crashed the other day did not land on F.I.D.O. at Manston?

Mr. Beswick: It would be wrong for me to give any explanation or theory about this accident. As to the time taken to warm up, I think it is in the order of 15 minutes; it is possible to land towards the end of that time.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why the apparatus at Blackbushe has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent in the last few years that it is now unserviceable?

Mr. Beswick: It is not a question of unserviceability because of deterioration, but that the installation at Manston was considered sufficient. During the time that the installation at Blackbushe was available, some 15 months, it was used only once, and that was for a take-off and not for a landing.

Mr. Perkins: Has any pilot the right to use the apparatus?

Mr. Beswick: Any pilot has the right to call for the apparatus if he requires it.

Mr. Ward: Can the Parliamentary Secretary definitely say that the apparatus at Manston is kept fully manned, and that it can be out into operation in 15 minutes?

Mr. Beswick: The apparatus at Manston is an Air Ministry apparatus, although it is available equally for civil and military aircraft. I understand that the answer is "yes," as I have checked up on that point, but if the hon. Gentle, man has any reason to believe otherwise, I shall be very glad to go into the matter once again.

Safety Regulations (Belts)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is satisfied that the regulations which require passengers to fasten seat belts before landing are conducive to the safety of passengers; and if he will further investigation into the matter.

Mr. Beswick: The weight of evidence shows that this regulation is conducive to the safety of passengers. I do not consider that a special investigation into this particular regulation is necessary, but the evidence of recent accidents, as in all previous cases, will be very carefully examined in relation to this question of passenger safety.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in several recent air crashes none of the passengers who was fastened by a safety belt survived, whereas some members of the crew who were not fastened in by a safety belt were thrown clear, and escaped with their lives?

Mr. Beswick: I know that publicity has been given to that, but there are other factors involved, and it would be wrong to draw the conclusion which my hon. Friend obviously draws.

Mr. Rankin: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would add to the safety of passengers if instead of the seating arrangements compelling them to sit facing the pilot's cabin, passengers sat with their backs towards it?

Comet Air Liners

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why Comet air liners are not used in the route from New York to the West Indies.

Mr. Beswick: The Comet air liner is still undergoing trials and is not yet ready for service on any route.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if British jet aeroplanes are made available to American passengers there will be a great demand by Americans to travel on them, and great pressure by Americans on their own internal air lines to buy British aeroplanes, which will be a great help to the British aircraft industry?

Mr. Beswick: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, but I think it is irrelevant to the Question which he asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Bus Shelters

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Lord President of the Council how much is being spent by the Festival of Britain Office in building bus shelters throughout the country; on what basis the sites for these are chosen; and what other building projects outside the Festival grounds are intended.

Mr. H. Morrison: On the first part of the Question the answer is nothing. On the second part, the choice of sites rests with the local authorities. On the third part, the Festival of Britain Office is not erecting any buildings outside the exhibition sites on the South Bank and in Poplar.

Mr. Donner: Will the Lord President of the Council consider reducing some of the expenditure in connection with the Festival and giving the money to the old age pensioners instead?

Mr. Morrison: In view of the fact that members of the Opposition Front Bench are members of the Festival Council, I think that that is a misplaced question which I should not like to describe.

Mr. Gerald Williams: On a point of order Could we have candles brought in on the extreme back benches, Mr.


Speaker? There seems to be plenty of light on the other benches.

Mr. Speaker: There are no lights there.

Sunday Opening

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Lord President of the Council to what extent he has agreed to restrict the intended activities of the Festival of Britain on Sundays as a result of the representations of the Sunday Observance Society.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is intended that the Festival of Britain shall be open to the public on Sundays.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House on this subject shortly.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his intention to open this exhibition on Sunday has been interfered with by the Sunday Observance Society, and will he let us know exactly what has happened?

Mr. Morrison: We have in connection with the Festival of Britain a religious advisory committee representing all the denominations, and in due course I will report to the House what has been their advice, which must obviously be taken into account with the greatest seriousness. The Lord's Day Observance Society is quite another matter. They are somewhat in the nature of a pressure group which it is for hon. Members to estimate according to their personal opinions.

Mr. Marlowe: Quite apart from the activities of this society, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is considerable uneasiness among a large section of the population as to whether in particular any amusement park should be open on Sundays? Will he also inform the House of his intentions at the earliest possible moment, as many of us wish to inform our constituents of his intentions?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that Members are receiving a large amount of correspondence, which I think is inspired by the Lord's Day Observance Society. On the other hand, I quite agree that it will be for the general convenience of the House to know the intentions of the Government at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before my right hon. Friend comes to a final decision on this matter will he bear in mind that there are thousands of people in the North of England particularly, who are now working six whole days per week, and that they also desire to see the Festival of Britain?

Mr. Morrison: Of course, that is one of the factors that has to be weighed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Lord President of the Council said that he would make a statement. Surely, the obvious thing is to await that statement and then ask questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Aliens

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Defence how many alien nationals are employed in the Armed Forces of the Crown, with separate figures for each Service.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): According to the latest information in my possession the numbers are as follows:—Royal Navy, 2; Army, 483; Royal Air Force, 461.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do not these figures make quite unsubstantial the right hon. Gentleman's ground for rejecting the proposal for a foreign legion, namely, that aliens are already employed in adequate numbers in the Armed Forces of the Crown?

Mr. Shinwell: It depends on what is meant by "adequate numbers."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that full use is being made of the alien manpower available?

Mr. Shinwell: We have to take into account a variety of factors; for example, the question of language.

Troopships (Accommodation)

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Defence if he is now satisfied with accommodation arrangements in all ships used for the transport of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Shinwell: Troopships have, for the last few years, been taken out of service in turn for refitting to post-war standards.


This work is proceeding as fast as possible but, while it is going on, heavy trooping requirements have meant that we have had to keep in service several older ships which are below these standards. They will be dispensed with as soon as practicable.

Mr. Wood: In view of the reply of the Secretary of State for War to a similar question yesterday, will the right hon. Gentleman make quite certain that as soon as it is practicable, there will be adequate recreational facilities and no "hard lying"?

Mr. Shinwell: We are very anxious to do our best for the men who have to travel in these ships. So far we have tried to do everything possible but we have been held up a little by the Korean affair.

Medical Branches (Pay)

Wing Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Defence if he will now make a statement in regard to the pay increases for the medical branches of the Services; and whether these increases will be effective from the same date as the increases in the other branches.

Mr. Shinwell: I have nothing to add at present to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member's Question on 25th October.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when this matter will be settled?

Mr. Shinwell: It has been very complicated, but I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Auxiliary Services (Recruiting)

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Defence by how much recruiting to the Auxiliary Forces has increased or decreased since August, 1950.

Mr. Shinwell: In September, 1950, there were 3,442 recruits to the volunteer Auxiliary and Reserve Forces compared with 2,803 in August. The figures for October are not yet available.

Mr. Low: As these later figures become available, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the need of the Auxiliary Forces is mainly for recruits for the next two years? Will he con-

sider some special terms to get those recruits to fill the gap which will later be filled by National Service men under the National Service Acts?

Mr. Shinwell: It by "special terms" the hon. Member means further emoluments, I am afraid that I cannot agree.

WESTERN DEFENCE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence (1) to what extent he supported the French Government's proposals at the Washington Conference for a European army:
(2) to what extent he supported proposals at the Washington Conference for the rearmament of Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the French Government's proposals, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in this House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 31st October. This statement provided the basis for my discussions in Washington. As regards the participation of Germany in Western defence, my hon. Friend has no doubt seen the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Washington meetings, in which the Ministers unanimously reaffirmed the importance, subject to adequate safeguards, of a German contribution to the building up of the defence of Europe. This reflects the view of His Majesty's Government, as already stated in this House. The form and extent of the contribution by Germany is still under consideration.

Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether this contribution from Germany is to take the form of conscription? Will he assure us that he is not asking the Germans to accept conscription that they do not want?

Mr. Shinwell: The matter of how these forces are to be raised is still under consideration.

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: Is there any reason why the Germans should not be entrusted immediately with anti-aircraft defence, radar and civil defence over the whole of Western Germany?

Mr. Shinwell: There is one reason, and that is that the matter has yet to be discussed with the appropriate authorities.

Captain Duncan: When are further discussions on this matter to take place, and where?

Mr. Shinwell: They are taking place all the time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there any proposal that the Germans should be allowed to have a tactical air force?

Mr. Shinwell: The matter may have been mentioned, but there is no definite conclusion.

Mr. James Hudson: Has the Minister taken into account the fact that the last time the Germans were permitted to rearm they used the arms in the first place to get an alliance with Russia against ourselves?

Mr. Shinwell: This is a very complicated subject and it is quite impossible to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Obviously hon. Members agree that it is complicated. I deprecate dealing with the matter by way of question and answer.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend inform the House what has happened in the interval since his recent statement, which was against the rearmament of Germany, and whether he is now making a statement of the Opposition view, against that which he put forward at that time?

Mr. Shinwell: I have not stated the Opposition view. I have stated the Government view.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the Minister undertake that when the negotiations in this matter are concluded, nothing will be done to put them into effect until this House has had an opportunity of considering them?

Mr. Shinwell: I will consider that question.

COMMONWEALTH FORCES

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to coordinate the training and operational planning of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and Empire.

Mr. Shinwell: The closest contact is constantly maintained with members of the Commonwealth through the military

liaison staffs in all defence matters. So far as training is concerned, many members of the Commonwealth Armed Forces attend courses in the United Kingdom, and in addition a number of officers from our own forces have attended courses in other Commonwealth countries. In most Commonwealth countries the training manuals are basically the same as those in the United Kingdom.

Brigadier Smyth: Would the Minister consider the possibility of Commonwealth forces actually training together? We were transporting whole divisions by air at the end of the war, and I think we are inclined to be rather static.

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, we have air personnel now training in Canada. We expect that next year we shall have members of the Royal Canadian Air Force training in this country. To operate this on a wide scale is not practicable at the present moment.

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to raise Colonial forces so that the strain on British manpower allocated to defence can be reduced.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement I made on this subject during the Debate on 14th September.

Brigadier Smyth: In view of the fact that India used to keep three or four divisions before the war in a fairly high state of operational readiness, would the Minister consider the possibility of having at least two Colonial divisions in such a state, in order to obviate having to raise forces continually from this country to send out at short notice to the Far East?

Mr. Shinwell: The Indian Army was raised after a long period of time, and it was a very well-trained army. It would take a considerable time before we could train Colonial troops up to that level.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend deal with this grave question very carefully, in view of the political ferment which exists in many of the Colonies?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, in this matter we naturally enter into consultation with the Colonial Governments concerned.

Mr. Braine: In view of the high qualities displayed by West African and East African troops in the late war, has specific consideration been given to the raising of additional units from the Royal West African Volunteer Force and the King's African Rifles?

Mr. Shinwell: It seems to be assumed from some of the questions that we have no Colonial forces. We have.

Sir Richard Acland: Before taking any action in this matter, will the Minister wait until opinions can be expressed in some of the West African legislative councils which are now in process of being brought into being?

Mr. Shinwell: There is no question of raising additional forces in the Colonies without the consent of the appropriate government.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he had taken the trouble to raise volunteer forces in Africa four years ago, they could be used now in Malaya, and the British garrison in Malaya could be where it ought to be, in Europe?

Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, I would say that I prefer the advice of my military advisers to that of the hon. Member.

Mr. Low: Is not one of the really difficult problems in the matter the shortage of suitable British officers and N.C.O's.? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some way can be found to pay British officers and N.C.O's. in such a way that they are not liable to United Kingdom Income Tax?

Mr. Shinwell: We have had this matter and other matters under consideration, and I want to tell hon. Members that our minds are not closed on this subject; but undoubtedly there are practical difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Meat (Grading)

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Food whether he will allow butchers to grade their meat as they did before the war, so that different prices may be charged according to quality.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): As long as it is necessary to maintain price control of meat it will not be possible to allow butchers freedom to fix their own grades and prices.

Mr. Fisher: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be for the convenience of the public and of the butchers if meat were graded according to origin? For instance, more would be charged for Canterbury lamb than for the less attractive Argentinian variety. Similarly we should pay more for the best Scottish beef than for the very old English cow that we usually eat on Sunday.

Mr. Willey: At the moment we are considering with the trade, revision of the present prices. It is the subject of discussion at the present time.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Could my hon. Friend say whether the butchers will now fix the proper tickets on their counters, to show the gradings?

Mr. Wiley: My hon. Friend has probably seen in the Press that some progress has been made in this matter.

Mr. Yates: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the instructions to grading panels are adequate, in view of the fact that in Birmingham it is suggested that there is a good deal of meat graded "A" and "B" which is only fit for manufacturing purposes? Will he look at the grading instructions?

Mr. Willey: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of what he has in mind, I will certainly look into them.

Sausages

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make additional supplies of pork meat available to butchers for the better quality sausages which he has now authorised.

Mr. F. Willey: I am sorry that no extra supplies of manufacturing pork can be made available at present. The position will, however, improve with the steady increase in the number of pigs reared in this country.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not a fact that the only effect of the Minister's concession is that there is less sausage of both sorts


available in the shops for the British housewife? Does he regard that position as a satisfactory outcome of his new policy?

Mr. Willey: If the meat content of sausage increases while the amount of meat remains the same, the number of sausages will decrease. I have already explained that the steadily increasing output of home-produced pork means that the number of sausages will increase in time.

Mr. John MacLeod: Is it the intention of this utility-minded Government to force utility sausages on the British people?

Christmas Bonuses

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food in view of the anticipated shortage of supplies of imported turkeys, for reasons over which the trade has no control, what the prospects are of a bonus issue of meat and bacon at Christmas.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the fact that adequate stocks are at present held by the trade, he will increase the consumer ration of chocolate and sugar confectionery during the next two ration periods and so enable those who wish to do so to purchase now the extras they require at Christmas time.

Mr. F. Willey: As my right hon. Friend said on Monday, 6th November, he hopes to make a statement about Christmas bonuses in the near future.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: When the Minister makes his statement will he bear in mind that such traditional sources of small turkeys as Italy, Hungary and Yugoslavia will, as a matter of Government policy, not be open to purchasers this season?

Mr. Wiley: We shall bear all relevant factors in mind.

EXPLOSION, GREAT OAKLEY

Sir Stanley Holmes: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House any information about the explosion which occurred yesterday at Bramble Island, near Harwich, Essex.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I regret to have to tell the House that an explosion occurred yesterday in a mixing house in an explosives factory at Bramble Island near Great Oakley resulting in the death of four persons and injury to a number of others. I have instructed one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives to investigate the cause of the accident: the inquiry was opened this morning.
The House will join me in expressing sympathy with the bereaved relatives and in the hope that the injured may speedily be restored.

Sir S. Holmes: May I ask the Home Secretary two short questions? First, will the inquiry include a very strict investigation of whether there was sabotage? Second, will he see that the dependants of those who were killed are properly provided for and that those who are injured have sustenance and attention until they get quite well?

Mr. Ede: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, it will be the duty of the inspector to endeavour to ascertain the cause of the explosion, and if any individuals are personally responsible it will then be the duty of the appropriate authorities, including the police, to endeavour to find those persons and bring them to account. With regard to the other question, there are, of course, arrangements with regard to industrial injuries and so on which will apply to this accident.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (FACILITIES)

Wing Commander Hulbert: I desire to ask your Ruling and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of which I have given you prior notice. I refer to Questions affecting the amenities of this House. Recently I sought to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works to ask him if he would arrange for additional telephone boxes for local calls to be placed adjacent to the Lobby. The Table refused this Question on the ground, I understand, that this Chamber is a Royal Palace either under the control of yourself or that of the Lord Great Chamberlain. I have looked up the precedents in this matter——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must ask me a question and not make a speech. It is rather difficult for me to answer a speech. I have looked at the point. The hon. and gallant Member has asked me why a Question to the Minister of Works concerning the siting of telephone boxes for local calls was refused a place on the Order Paper. The answer is that this Question was concerned with the allocation of space in the Palace of Westminster, a matter which is the responsibility not of the Minister of Works nor of any other Minister, but of the Lord Great Chamberlain and, under him, the Serjeant at Arms. The Questions asked in 1937, to which I think the hon. and gallant Member was going to draw my attention, were concerned not with the allocation of space but with the maintenance of apparatus already installed and as such were properly put down to the Ministers responsible for maintaining that apparatus. All I can suggest to the hon. and gallant Member is that if he really wants to explore the matter further he should give me notice and put a Private Notice Question to the Speaker.

Mr. Churchill: If the Question is not in order and cannot be put to the Minister of Works, would it not be possible after the publicity which has now been given to it for the Minister of Works to make the necessary recommendations through the appropriate channel?

Wing Commander Hulbert: I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if you are aware that, as a result of my raising this matter, the right hon. Gentleman has now provided telephone booths outside this Chamber?

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works and the Lord President of the Council whether it would not be convenient after a few more weeks have passed, to find an afternoon for a discussion in which all opinions upon the many virtues and some defects of this new Chamber could be expressed?

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): May I say with regard to the telephone boxes, that long before I had notice that this Question was refused, steps had been taken to supply a limited number of dialling boxes right alongside the trunk

call boxes? With regard to complaints concerning the accommodation now provided, might I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that if people will let me have their objections we shall sort them out and see what can be done to meet everybody's point of view?

CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CONFERENCE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GRANVILLE WEST:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make the statement he undertook to make on the subject of the relations between the Central African Territories.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and that of the House, I should like to answer this Question.
The question of the closer association of the Central African territories of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland has been under discussion for many years. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have after careful consideration formed the conclusion that it is desirable that there should be a fresh examination of the problem, and they have accepted the suggestion of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that a conference of officials of the three Central African Governments, of the Central African Council and of the Commonwealth Relations Office and Colonial Office shall be held in London for this purpose. It is intended that the conference shall meet early in 1951.
The officials will examine the problem in all its aspects and consider whether it is possible, in the light of this examination, for them to formulate proposals for a further advance to be made in the closer association of the three Central African territories which they could recommend to the Governments of these territories and to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. It should be emphasised that the work of the Conference will be purely exploratory and will in no way


commit any of the participating Governments to the adoption of any proposals that may be formulated by the Conference. Full account will be taken of the special responsibilities of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom towards Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and adequate opportunity will be afforded for public discussion of any proposals that may be put forward. This will include consultation with African opinion in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in accordance with His Majesty's Government's statement made in the House of Commons that full account would be taken of it before any change affecting African interests could be considered.

Mr. Butcher: In view of the fact that this conference is purely exploratory, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to invite South Africa to be represented on it?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While welcoming the proposed talks, and hoping that by patience and mutual understanding they will lead to the strengthening of all three territories, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? When he talks, quite rightly, of consultation with African interests in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, it is also his intention, I hope, to consult with unofficial European opinion in all three territories?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. Sir, but I wanted to emphasise that we regard ourselves as having special responsibilities towards the Africans.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Could my right hon. Friend tell us what will be the native representation on this conference?

Mr. Griffiths: This is a conference of officials, and I regret that at this stage there are no African officials with the qualifications necessary to take part in the conference. That is one reason why I wanted to emphasise in my reply that we accept and, indeed, fully recognise our special responsibilities, and that places a special responsibility upon the officers of my Department to attend the conference.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I ask the Minister, while appreciating as I am sure he does that the tendency today is towards bigger units, whether he is aware

that there is great concern in this part of the world that at last we shall get concrete results out of this meeting?

Mr. Snow: Will the conference have the right to decline to hear evidence if it is offered? For instance, if the Rev. Michael Scott should offer to give evidence, could he be refused?

Mr. Griffiths: The conference will be one of officials and will not be receiving evidence. There will be officials drawn from those countries and organisations I have mentioned. It will be their duty to examine the problem and submit any proposals that may emerge from it to the respective Governments. They will, therefore, not receive any evidence.

Sir Ian Fraser: Is not the South African Government an important Government in the British Commonwealth, and if they are not appropriately to be present at an official conference of Colonies, will they, at any rate, be consulted and their good will sought at a later stage?

Mr. Griffiths: There are, of course, several Governments in Africa. This is a conference of the officials of the officials of the Governments of the three territories concerned.

Mr. John Hynd: While no one will question the desirability of a close examination of this question, is the Minister fully aware of the very strong suspicions amongst African opinion as to what this might lead to? In these special circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider, even if it is not possible to have official African representation at this stage, inviting African observers from responsible African organisations?

Mr. Griffiths: I would want notice of that question. As I have said, I regret that there are no African officers with the qualifications necessary for this conference. That is why I emphasise again that this places a special responsibility upon the officers of my Department.

Mr. G. Beresford Craddock: Would it not be advantageous to have unofficial members on this body as well as officials?

Mr. Griffiths: No, it has been arranged that this should be an official conference. I want to emphasise again that none of the participating Governments are committed in advance to any proposals they may make.

Sir Richard Acland: In view of the answer given to the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) is not that a special reason for inviting some Africans who are not officials to take part in this conference, even if only as observers?

Mr. Griffiths: No. This has been carefully considered, and it is thought desirable that at this stage it should be a conference of officials only. If any proposals emerge, the next stage will be the stage at which we shall—and I give this undertaking—consult fully African opinion.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Did I understand the Minister to say that the delegates would report to their own governments? Does that mean there will be no published report of the conclusions of the conference, and if that be so, how is public opinion in these localities to know what has happened?

Mr. Griffiths: These are not delegates; these are officers called together to do what is in a sense a technical job, to find out whether they can collectively formulate any proposals which they think they might submit to their governments without any committal. Therefore, they are in no sense of the word, delegates.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what time it will take—one month or two months?

Mr. Griffiths: Some months. I would not like to be more precise than that.

Mr. Churchill: Would it not be a good thing to have this information at our disposal before we deliberate the matter further?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry, but I did not catch the first part of that supplementary question.

Mr. Rankin: While my right hon. Friend has suggested that he would like notice of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), would he not agree to give it favourable consideration?

Mr. Griffiths: I have stressed in my replies to supplementary questions that I regard myself, as Secretary of State for

the Colonies, as having special responsibility to safeguard these people.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the terms of reference of this conference, and who will provide the chairman? Will the chairman be provided or appointed by the Colonial Office, or will the conference choose its own chairman?

Mr. Griffiths: By their terms of reference they have to consider the question whether they can formulate proposals for the closer association of these territories which they can jointly recommend to their respective governments.

Mr. Leslie Hale: If the people of, for example, Nyasaland, are not to be represented at the conference, and cannot give evidence, how will they make their views felt and how can they approach the conference and put their viewpoint?

Mr. Griffiths: The position will be that these officials will, if they can agree, submit proposals to their governments. When those proposals are submitted, if the governments feel they can be further considered, there will be at that stage adequate opportunity for public discussion. I give the undertaking that there will be the fullest consultation with African opinion.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: As I understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, the object of this conference is to deal with these territories in Africa. It is to be a conference between Government officials. Will the governments give an undertaking that the result of that conference will be made known when it is known to the governments?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. The position is that these officials will seek to draw up proposals if they can agree proposals. I want again to make it perfectly clear that none of the governments concerned is committed to any proposal it may put forward. All I say is that when proposals are put forward we shall consider them, and we shall have the fullest consultation, as I have indicated already.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As this will be solely a conference of officials, can the Minister say what provision is being made


for it to be followed by another conference at which Africa opinion may be consulted?

Mr. Griffiths: We do not know yet whether any agreed proposals will emerge during this conference of officials. If agreed proposals emerge, it will be at that stage that we shall follow out what my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Since this is a conference between officials, why does the Minister announce it now before he knows the result?

Mr. Griffiths: I have announced that His Majesty's Government have accepted the invitation from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for a conference of officials. I have announced it because I thought it was my duty to announce that this conference will take place.

Mr. J. Hynd: As there has been serious misgiving in central Africa amongst native opinion about this kind of development, will the Minister take adequate steps to see that the real purposes of the conference are fully explained to African opinion in advance? He will be aware that there will be serious misrepresentation of these purposes, which may be extremely dangerous.

Mr. Griffiths: I am fully conscious of that, and I will take every step possible to make the purposes of this conference known.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the Minister not appreciate that this suggestion is a serious one? If he is not going to bring into consultation unofficial views at the start, once again the Government will make a mistake.

Sir R. Acland: If the Minister cannot allow Africans to take part in that conference, will he bring three or four representative Africans from those parts, to Great Britain to be constantly apprising those Colonial Office officials who will be representing their interests at the conference?

Mr. Griffiths: I want to get this perfectly clear. If proposals emerge from this conference which these governments will consider, may I repeat once more that there will be the fullest consultation with African opinion in these territories.

BILL PRESENTED

EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

"to make certain provision of a financial nature in connection with the operation of the European Payments Union Agreement and the furnishing of American Aid in connection therewith," presented by Mr. Jay; supported by Mr. John Edwards; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME)

3.52 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move.
That

(1) save as provided in paragraphs (2), (3) and (6) of this Order Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting for the remainder of the Session;
(2) Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 1st December, 26th January, 9th and 23rd February, 9th March and 6th April;
(3) on and after Friday 20th April Public Bills other than Government Bills shall be arranged on the Order Paper in the following order:—Consideration of Lords Amendments, Third Readings, Considerations of Report not already entered upon, adjourned Proceedings on Consideration, Bills in progress in Committee, Bills appointed for Committee, and Second Readings; and Bills so arranged shall have precedence over Government Business on that Friday and the following Fridays, namely, 4th May, 8th and 22nd June;
(4) the ballot for unofficial Members' Bills shall be held on Thursday 16th November under arrangements to he made by Mr. Speaker, and the Bills shall be introduced at the commencement of Public Business on Friday 17th November;
(5) for the remainder of the Session no Notices of Motions for leave to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) shall be set down;
(6) unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 24th November, 8th December, 2nd and 16th February, 2nd and 16th March, 13th and 27th April, and 1st and 15th June; and no Notices of Motions shall be handed in for any of these Fridays in anticipation of the ballots under paragraph (7) of this Order; and
(7) ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall be held


after Questions on the following Wednesdays, namely, 15th and 22nd November, 24th and 31st January, 14th and 28th February, 4th and 11th April, and 9th and 30th May.

In moving this Motion I would explain that it gives effect to the proposals of the Government in regard to Private Members' facilities during the present Session. Motions of this character tend to be complicated, but this one sets out the arrangements very clearly and for this we are indebted to the authorities of the House.
In restoring Private Members' time we have adopted the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Procedure of 1946 in favour of allocating 20 Fridays, Motions and Bills being taken on alternate Fridays. This proposal has the merit of spreading Private Members' opportunities over a longer period of the Session and does not militate against Private Members' Bills being passed and sent to another place with a chance of their reaching the Statute Book before the end of the Session. I think the House will feel that it was desirable for us to give due notice of our intentions so that hon. Members had an opportunity to prepare themselves.
The House will wish me briefly to review the proposed arrangements which are set out in the various paragraphs of the Motion. In the first place, there will be 10 Fridays for Bills, the first six for Second Readings, beginning on Friday, 1st December, and the last four of the Bill Fridays will be for final stages. The number of Bills which the House will consider, of course, depends on the nature of the Measures brought forward and their reception by the House. On the last four Bill Fridays, the Bills in the most advanced stage will be taken first, and the actual order set out in paragraph (3) is a repetition of Standing Order No. 5.
Secondly, the ballot for Private Members' Bills will take place under arrangements to be made by Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will sign their names on the list which will be placed in the No Lobby on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, 14th and 15th November. The draw will take place in a Committee room upstairs and the result made known on a printed list which will be obtainable from the Vote Office. Hon. Members who are successful will present their Bills when the House meets at 11 a.m. on Friday. 17th November.
Thirdly, there will be 10 Fridays for Private Members' Motions, the first being Friday, 24th November. The ballot for precedence of Motions on this day will be taken after Questions in the House on Wednesday, 15th November, and thereafter periodical ballots will be held in the House. This method is desirable in order that Motions may be fresh and topical—that is to say, that the latest practicable time should be fixed for the ballot before the Motion is actually debated in the House, consistently with hon. Members having proper notice of the Motion coming forward and its terms.
We have very carefully considered the representations recently made by hon. Members in regard to Bills presented under the so-called Ten Minutes Rule procedure, but we feel that this method has disadvantages and that it would be more to the advantage of hon. Members to present Bills in the ordinary way after the ballot for Bills has been held. That is to say, we are not proposing in any way to interfere with the right of hon. Members to present Bills; and of course, the so-called Ten Minutes Rule Motion is a Motion to permit Members to present a Bill. We are proposing that Members should be perfectly free to present Bills at any time after that date. The Bills would secure a First Reading automatically. They would be printed, and might well find an opportunity for debate on the Second Reading on one of the Fridays to be set apart for Private Members' Bills. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) pointed out on 1st November that this was a much wider privilege than the Ten Minutes Rule procedure. That, of course, is clearly the case.
There is an advantage in getting the Bills of hon. Members presented and printed, and this we have provided for in the interests of Private Members. With the so-called Ten Minutes Rule procedure, hon. Members may not succeed in persuading the House to allow a Bill to be brought in, and it would not he printed. While hon. Members may have ventilated their proposal, time will have been occupied to no purpose in those circumstances, and perhaps the House will have been inconvenienced by an encroachment upon the time set apart for an important Debate.
The House will welcome the fact that the Government have been able this Ses-


sion to restore Private Members' facilities and to set apart about the same number of days for their Bills and Motions as was customary before the war. If this Motion, which I commend to the House, is accepted, Private Members will be able to exercise their own initiative in proposing Motions and promoting legislation. On the whole the Government have taken the general views of the House into full consideration, and I venture to commend the Motion to the favourable consideration of the House.

3.56 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I hope that I shall be as brief in replying as the right hon. Gentleman was in moving the Motion. Everybody in the House, I think, will welcome the Motion, although I do not think that I can agree to the phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the Government are restoring time to Private Members. That is not really the case. What has happened is that the Government have at last deferred to the wishes of the House expressed repeatedly since the Report of the Select Committee in 1946 and the Government are abandoning their use of Private Members' time, because this time—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was stolen."] No, it was not stolen. This time was willingly surrendered to the Executive at the beginning of the war, in view of the circumstances of the war, on the understanding that the Government should give up their claim as soon as possible after the war. It is just as well to put it in the right perspective.
The House itself is asserting its own rights. I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think I am cavilling at his action, but I think that he was slightly inaccurate in the way he put it. He said that Private Members will now have the privilege of introducing Bills. It is not a privilege—it is an inherent right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and for the benefit of all Governments that should be made quite clear now that the surrender has been made, the war being well over. The only point at issue which will arise is that covered by the Amendment which is on the Paper to leave out paragraph (5); therefore, I say nothing about that. I understood, however, that the original right of presentation of Bills at the Table and having them printed is now to

re-emerge. That is extremely satisfactory and everybody will welcome it, whatever they have to say about the other issue.
The only question which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon—and while I would not press it on this occasion, I keep open the rights of any Private Member, obviously, in so far as I can do it for them in future—is the proposal, which I had thought was universally acceptable, made by the Select Committee, that there should be one ballot for Bills and Motions—not for the subject of either of them, but for the selection of days—so that hon. Members, some of whom are legislatively-minded and some of whom are more Motion-minded—if there are such phrases—could decide which line they wanted to take.
Now, I understand, there are to be separate ballots, one for all Bills, and then the fortnightly ballot for Motions. We recommended the other course, and I think that on consideration hon. Members will probably agree with the Select Committee; we went into the matter very carefully, as hon. Members who have read the Report will know. We thought it would be a better idea that the whole question concerning what one hon. Member who was lucky wanted to do—to legislate or to move Motions—should be decided at one time. It was not a question of settling then the subject of the Motion; that, of course, was provided for to be dealt with nearer to the date; it was merely the selection of what should be done.
The right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon that, and his Motion is drawn up in the other, and, possibly, more like the older, form. I do not press the matter today, but I hope that if another opportunity arises in another year the question may be looked at again, because I think that that is the best way out of it. This is really only an inquiry; possibly the right hon. Gentleman overlooked that side of our Report altogether. Having said that, I am sure that everybody in the House is delighted to see this Motion put upon the Order Paper. Not only have we returned to this House, which is our proper Chamber, but we are gradually getting back to some of the peace-time usages, and perhaps it is one more mark that the war is receding into the distance.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Referring to the right of hon. Members to introduce Bills and have them printed, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the next stage in a Bill of that sort would be the chance of getting a Second Reading on one of the last four Fridays. In the old days hon. Members could let a Bill go forward in the ordinary way and it was carried if no Member cried out "object". I imagine that procedure will obtain at the option of the hon. Member introducing the Bill?

Mr. Morrison: I should think so, but if the hon. Member liked to put it down to come up at 10 o'clock, or whatever the hour may be, he could take his chance and if no one said "object" it would get a Second Reading and go forward. That right is not prejudiced. The other matter relating to Fridays depends on the competition in the queue as to the Bills to be selected.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out paragraph (5).
I hope I can emulate the two hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House, in brevity at least. I would not maintain that this is a matter of very great importance and it is quite true, as the Lord President said, that we are in any case reviving the right of unofficial Members to introduce Bills without leave asked. That is highly satisfactory, but I think there are arguments in favour of the other method also.
There are, first, the obvious arguments from usage, that by usage—which would presumably not have been interrupted but for the war—unofficial Members have had this right and, secondly, there is really a distinction between the two kinds of procedure. In the words of Sir Gilbert Campion, in his introduction to procedure, this method is an
opportunity to a Member who may hope by a judicious explanation to turn into an unopposed Bill
what he is introducing, or
on which, although he has not that hope, he may desire to make a demonstration";
and the difference between this method and the other method is that under this method a Member may be sure he will get the attention of something like half the House, or more, whereas under the other method he cannot be sure he will get half a

dozen Members to read his Bill. Also, under this method a Member may be reasonably sure that some public attention will be drawn to the topic about which he wishes to legislate. Those seem to be the advantages and, with respect to anyone else who wishes to speak in support, that seems to be the whole case for this method.
The case against it, if I may venture to put that also, seems to me to be no more than this; that upon—I think I am right in saying—it may be as many as two days a week but not more, 25 minutes or so of time would be taken from the main Debate. That seems to be the case against, and it is a case against from the point of view of the unofficial Member himself. It has always been my opinion that what are called Private Members' Rights, with capital letters, are less important to unofficial Members than their opportunities of speaking in main debates, and every time we take 25 minutes out of a main debate we shorten that opportunity.
That seems to me the whole case against this Amendment and that case could be met and more than met by returning to the eleven o'clock hour for the termination of our proceedings. Therefore, it seems to me that the case for is a good deal stronger than the case against.

4.3 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to second the Amendment.
It did not seem quite clear from what the Lord President said whether the extra provision he has made that Bills may lie on the Table means that that part of the procedure which normally went with the Ten Minutes Rule procedure is provided for and we are left with the possibility still of hon. Members being able to introduce a Bill, have it printed and put at the end of the Order Paper and then, possibly, called at the end of the day if Government business is brought to an end at an early stage. If that is the case, that weakens the claim for the re-establishment of the Ten Minutes Rule, but I am not sure that that is what the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
As hon. Members know, under the Ten Minutes Rule one spoke for a few minutes indicating the nature of the Bill, perhaps someone was called to object, and then


Mr. Speaker had the right, either to put the Question or to move the Adjournment. The Bill was then given publicity by the process, printed, and put at the end of the Order Paper. If Government business terminated on some day at five, six or seven o'clock, the Bill came up, and if the hon. Member was there and ready and had his friends there, it had a Second Reading stage. Sometimes only two or three minutes of time was needed if the Bill was called just before ten o'clock and the hon. Member merely rose in his place and the Bill was given a formal Second Reading. When that stage was got through the Bill could proceed. What I want from the right hon. Gentleman is whether that situation now subsists under his new promise about Bills being laid to be printed, or whether it does not, because, if it does not, we must press the Amendment on the Ten Minutes Rule. If that is the situation, all that remains is the ten minutes of advantage in prior publicity.
This suggestion to restore the Ten Minutes Rule has very respectable antecedents. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman did not restore the right. It scarcely wastes any time at all and, from what we see in the King's Speech, there is not going to be a very great deal of business for this House to consider in the next few gloomy winter months before we get to the sunny days when the Lord President can bask in the spacious atmosphere of the Festival of Britain. But we are going at such a pace now that there are three Second Readings for this week and by Saturday they will be out of the way. I do not know what is to come next week, unless it be a diet of poached salmon and beet sugar, but we are going so fast that there is really plenty of time to introduce this little reform.
I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure in this regard. He accepted the rest of it and agreed to the restoration of Private Members' rights, with this one small exception. Why he could not complete the process and say that he had gone back to being a traditionalist, I do not know. If he wants assistance in making up his mind, may I give the words of the Prime Minister, who said on 29th November, 1939:

Will the introduction of a Bill by Members either under the Ten-Minute Rule or by the ordinary way of introducing a Bill really do anything to hamper the proper carrying on of the war?
For war, we might substitute "Socialism."
I suggest nothing of the sort. I believe it is an extremely useful thing that legislative proposals should be brought before this House quickly and with certainty.…
This was said by the present Prime Minister to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. He went on to say:
I think it is a desirable thing. There is no reason to think it will unduly impinge on the time of Government business. … We must have from the Prime Minister some definite reason why it would be wrong to have a Bill introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule. It might be a Bill which the House desired to pass."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1939; Vol. 355, c. 98–9.]
I join with my hon. Friend in pressing this matter and I wish the Prime Minister were here to note what he said in 1939.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: However other people may feel about this, I think it would be ungracious for the House not to express its appreciation of the fact that the Government have indeed given up a claim on the time of the House, which the House could not have refused to give if the Government had insisted on retaining it. [Interruption.] I did say, however, "other people may feel." I myself feel that when one gets something back from somebody that one wanted, it is not very ungracious to say: "Thank you." That, however, is a matter of individual opinion, in which each of us will follow his own standards.
It seems to me we are doing very much better than if we had merely gone back to the pre-war practice. The proposals in the Report of the Select Committee, which were unanimous, make a very much better use of the time of Private Members under the Rules than was possible under the old practices, so that we are not recovering something we had before and which we had lost, but we are adding something to the effectiveness of the time available for Private Members.
At the same time, I want to repeat what I said during the last debate, that I myself regret and feel some disappointment that the Government could not have gone the whole way and accepted the


whole Report. They do not have very much further to go, and the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), who moved the Amendment, amply demonstrated that the time lost to the Government by restoring this particular practice was so very small, and could so very easily be made up that it affords not a very adequate reason for withholding it when the Government's proposals on the main Report have gone so far. I am disappointed about that, and if my right hon. Friend could reconsider it even at this late stage, I should be delighted.
At the same time, the Government having gone so far—I do not know whether it is open to me to offer any advice to hon. Members opposite—I suggest that this is not an occasion on which to divide the House. If the House were divided about this subject, one would like to see it divided not according to parties, and without the party Whips laid on, because it is purely a Private Members' point and the Government are not closely connected with it. If there were to be a Division, one would prefer it that way. I still think, however, that on this occasion the Amendment ought not to be pressed to a Division. Next year we shall have to consider this matter again, and I hope in the meantime, in the light of the experience acquired under the Motion now before the House, the Government might be able to reconsider the matter and restore the whole of the rights of Private Members.
Before I sit down I should like to refer to a point made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I say this in defence of the Government. The noble Lord quoted to us a statement made at the beginning of the war by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the Ten Minutes Rule being available even under war-time conditions. In order to be quite fair with the House, the noble Lord might have gone a little further with his quotation, and told us what reply the then Prime Minister gave to the point which my right hon. Friend made, because my recollection is that the Prime Minister did not make the concession demanded, and that my right hon. Friend and those of us who supported him on that occasion did not press the Government on the point. I hope that today the Government will not be pressed upon this point either.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: For once I will reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and say "Thank you" to the Government for returning some of the rights of Private Members' time. I think at the same time that it is only fair to say that if I were lending a man a pound and it came back, as I expected it to come back, I would say "Thank you." If I lent a pound to a man of doubtful standing, and it came back I should be very very grateful that it had come back. As the Government in my view is of doubtful standing, I am more than ever grateful that this privilege has returned.
I should like to support my hon. Friends in this Amendment. I have some experience of the Ten Minutes Rule. I was responsible for the Health Resorts and Water Places Act, 1936, which I introduced under the Rule. I had the backing of Members of all parties. Indeed, one of the names on my Bill was that of the Home Secretary, and he was able to help me with his party to get the Bill through. The real reason I succeeded was that I was able to tell a full House of Commons in the short space of six minutes what the motives were and what we were trying to do.
The result was that I was able to get the Second Reading through, also the Committee Stage on the nod and the Third Reading on the nod. I got the Bill carried to another place and it came back with Lords Amendments, which also went through on the nod. Within the space of one month I went to another place and heard the Royal Assent given to my Bill. That is the value of the Ten Minutes Rule. Should I not have had the opportunity of making a short speech of six minutes I never would have got than Bill through on the nod. I beg the Lord President to reconsider the matter.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I have never known of any Government that has been particularly willing to grant Private Members' time. Therefore, I do not think there is any need to thank the Prime Minister or anyone else of any Government. I look at the matter very differently from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not regard it as the Government


having given us anything back. I consider that we have those rights, and that on this occasion the Government are not taking away as much from us as they have done in the past. I do not regard any reason why, because the Government are picking one of our pockets instead of the two of them, we should give them an official vote of thanks. It is all the more reason why we should knock them on their heads before they pick the other pocket. However, if I developed that much further I might be getting controversial.
I hope the House will insist, if it is at all possible, on securing the Ten Minutes Rule procedure. We have just had the best possible illustration that we could have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson), because that Bill conferred great benefits on the smaller health resorts and less important ones, and also on the most important of all, naturally, Torquay. Apart from that, I want to see it restored for this reason, which I think is a good one and which has not been given by way of illustration before. When Members have the power of using the Ten Minutes Rule they can bring in a Bill which deals with some particular topic. At the present time facing the House of Commons is the very difficult position on the matter of Questions on nationalised industries, and I hope that on some future occasions the Ten Minutes Rule procedure will be used for the purpose of enabling private Members to bring up points about the nationalised industries.
That idea, I think, is practical, and it is one which gets over the difficulty of not being able to do it at Question Time. I notice that this is received with considerable dislike by the Government, and I am therefore glad that I have been able to raise an entirely fresh point with regard to the Ten Minutes Rule; and one thoroughly disliked by the officially minded people sitting on the Government Bench. I hope that Private Members on all sides will welcome this as a strengthening of the claim that we should get this Ten Minutes Rule procedure so as to be able to strengthen our position, as back bench Members, against any Government in the future.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Poole: Until the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) made his contribution to this discussion, I had complete sympathy with the mover and seconder of the Amendment; but the hon. Member for Torquay, having now made it so clear that he is not particularly anxious to restore the rights of Private Members to introduce Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule, but rather that he is concerned to use the Ten Minutes Rule procedure in order to embarrass the Government on every occasion, has already lost my support.
I am one who, right from the beginning, as long as I have been a Member of this House, has pressed the Lord President for the restoration of the rights of Private Members in this House. I should have been much happier if we had been accepting the whole of the Report of the Committee in this case; but it does not help us to go with hon. Gentlemen opposite when we find that those facilities are to be abused in the way in which the hon. Member for Torquay has suggested.

Mr. C. Williams: I did not say they should be abused. What I did was to make a suggestion which might be considered on some suitable occasion—which obviously this is not—as to whether we could avoid what is now a very difficult position, as is acknowledged by back bench Members on all sides, of not allowing individual Private Members to ask any questions so far as nationalisation is concerned. I meant nothing against this Government or any Government. It is just a point of view.

Mr. Poole: I agree. But the hon. Member was directing his remarks particularly to the nationalised industries, and surely it is an anomaly if, in order to make a point regarding nationalised industries, we are going to take advantage of the position, and introduce a Bill in order to make a speech against the nationalised industries. I confess that, with the views that I hold about road transport and C licensed vehicles, it would be a great temptation to me to use the Ten Minutes Rule procedure to introduce a Bill to bring road transport on to the lines on which I think it ought to go. But that is no argument for me in supporting this procedure.
Nor am I convinced of the fact that the hon. Member for Torquay was anxious to preserve the rights of Private Members in this House, because I remember the days when he functioned in a capacity other than that of a bank bencher in this House. I seem to remember that in those days the greater part of my Parliamentary life was spent in fighting for the rights of back benchers against the objections of the hon. Gentleman when he was occupying the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I cast no aspersions on the chair or on the occupancy of the Chair by the hon. Gentleman. What I do say is that he then had certain views about the rights of back benchers, and I had different views. I think we were both entitled to exercise our arguments in support of our point of view the only difference being that he was in the fortunate position of being able to give a Ruling and I was in the position of having always to accept his Ruling. I did so on every occasion, although sometimes with some doubts in my own mind.
I ask the Lord President to consider whether it is possible to put a peak figure on the number of Bills brought in under the Ten Minutes Rule. I think that what is troubling the Lord President is that we should lose so much ordinary Parliamentary time by a mass of Bills being introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule; and I am wondering whether we could say that in a given Session there shall be x number of Bills introduced in that Session, and that only the first 20 of whatever number are introduced shall be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule.
I should like to see all our pre-war rights restored in this connection. I am very jealous of the rights of Private Members. I am even more jealous of them in these days when back bench Members get so little opportunity ever to express themselves and, when they do express themselves, find that the points of view they have expressed are totally disregarded by those who wind up the Debates. Parliamentary democracy, if it means anything, means that every hon. Member has the right to make his impact upon the legislation of the day. Yet, so often it is the case now that back bench Members make a number of speeches which just float out on the air. They may find their place perhaps in the Press in one's constituency, but they are entirely dis-

regarded by the Executive in their consideration of the matters before the House.
Therefore, I am in sympathy with giving every possible opportunity to Private Members to express themselves, but I think it a very great pity that it, has been suggested that this Ten Minutes Rule for the introduction of Private Bills should be used for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member for Torquay. I hope that the Lord President will look at the matter again, if not in this Session, perhaps in the next Session. If it is necessary, for the purpose of safeguarding the time of the House, to put a peak figure on the number of Bills, let us do that; but it would have been very nice if the whole of the rights of Private Members had been restored to us.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I should like to put before the Lord President one further reason why this right of introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule should be restored. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that when the rights of Private Members are restored, it is not ungracious to say a word of thanks to the person who restores them. I think he is correct. Anybody who had had his clothes taken care of, would be happy to receive back a full outfit, but no one would miss—or would perhaps not regard it as of particular importance if he did—a handkerchief. He might not regard that as being serious, but if at any time he had a cold, he would be, at least temporarily, embarrassed.
I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. He has gone a long way indeed——

Mr. H. Morrison: I have.

Mr. Butcher: Well, "be not weary in well doing." The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to restore the full rights of Private Members. The only thing about which we can complain in any way is that this right of introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule has not been restored. It is a long time since Bills were introduced under this Rule, and during almost the whole of that time the right hon. Gentleman has been in office—and in high office. If he will allow me to say so, he has become a little too much Front-Bench minded.
It may very well be that he thinks Bills introduced by Private Members under this Standing Order No. 12 will be a nuisance to the Government. If they are, and if they take excessive time from the working hours of the House, then the experiment can be abandoned. But we are starting again with almost the complete restoration of the rights of Private Members and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, without committing himself too far ahead, to make a full restoration at the present time.
There are in this Chamber at the present time rather more than 400 hon. Members who have had no experience at all of whether the Ten Minutes Rule could be valuable or otherwise. In fairness to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, many of whom sit behind him, I believe the Lord President should give them the opportunity to exercise the right of Private Members in this House which was, on the whole, wisely exercised in pre-war times.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My views on this matter have been expressed annually since I became a Member of this House. This is the only occasion on which I deplore the promotion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, because I miss his help in the defence of the rights of Private Members. My views are very simple. My first is that the powers of the Government nave increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished. My second is that the verbosity of Front Bench speakers has increased, is still increasing, and might well be diminished.
If we wanted to find 25 minutes to allocate to Private Members we could well take it from the time lost on such occasions as yesterday when we had something like three or four hours devoted to Front Bench orations. It would not be difficult. It is the bounden duty of every Private Member to recollect that he occupies a temporary seat here and that he must protect the rights of his successors who will occupy that seat. Therefore, it is right that we should make the sturdiest defence of Private Members' rights. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for giving me an excuse to reconcile my duty to the Government

with my conscience on this somewhat difficult occasion if we come to a Division.
I hope that we shall not have to face that difficult decision. This is a back benchers' day. We are talking about back benchers' rights and I feel—and here I make a suggestion entirely without authority—that there might very well be channels of communication between back benchers when we deal with questions affecting Private Members' rights.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Unusual channels.

Mr. Hale: Unusual channels. I am very much obliged for that suggestion. I hope that this mode of procedure has now been christened and that it may have an effect.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have called the Amendment, but I really sought to catch your eye on a different matter arising out of the discussion on the Motion. I think that it will be in order to consider what rights we have got. Although the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has put with complete accuracy the constitutional view point, it is right to remember that for 10 years this House voluntarily surrendered all rights of Private Members—for nine years, every right; and for one year, practically every right. This is a very welcome return of our rights. It is something that we ought to welcome. It is something substantial.
I want to make two apologies to the House. The first is that I am going to commit the discourtesy, having addressed the House, of leaving it because there is a meeting upstairs waiting for my attendance. The second is that I speak on this occasion as one who has had no experience of the Ten Minutes Rule and no knowledge of its working. Therefore, I say to my right hon. Friend that our approach to this matter must be that a Committee of the House was appointed to consider the position, and that that Committee unanimously reported in favour of this restoration. That is a consideration which must affect our minds when approaching the matter in the first instance.
I know that my right hon. Friend has considered this matter and that he has given substantial concessions. I urge him to consider the restoration of


this procedure. The hon. Member for Torquay talked about raising nationalisation issues under the Ten Minutes Rule——

Mr. David Renton: Surely, a Private Member has the right to hold views of his own about nationalised industries and about any other matter? A Private Member may have views about nationalised industries quite distinct from the views held by his own Front Bench. That is, apparently, the point of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Poole).

Mr. Hale: I am obliged for the hon. Gentleman for putting that point of view. It enables me to put the view which I rose to put and which I was somewhat reluctant to put because I felt that it was almost impertinent for me as a back bencher to put it to the House. I feel rather deeply about this matter. In the last Session we restored the right to move Motions on Fridays. That is a very great privilege. It is certainly a right that we cherish. But what in fact happened on Fridays, in general, was that we discussed purely national issues—party issues. We had a party battle on great matters that were properly the subject for discussion on Supply Days. In a sense, we surrendered the genuine rights of Private Members to raise social issues of great importance which might be raised on those days.
I say this sincerely. I am only putting an individual point of view, and it may be a wrong point of view, but I put it sincerely, and this is where I think unusual channels might have some purpose. We ought to cherish our right to raise real social issues. We ought on Fridays, whenever we can, to try to cut the party divisions and to discuss these matters from the point of view of individuals interested in humanity who have questions to raise. Hon. Gentlemen will remember the message of the Queen of the Fairies in "Iolanthe" about the reformation of the House of Lords when she said:
And a duke's exalted station,
Be attainable by Competitive Examination.
I am in favour of that, but the real menace was that:
He shall end the cherished rights
That we enjoy on Friday nights.
My right hon. Friend has restored the cherished right that we enjoy on Friday

morning. But if we debate party issues on Fridays we are losing the cherished right that we enjoy on Friday nights because we have to vote at 4 o'clock. The Whips are put on because major measures of Government policy are discussed on those days. That is why I suggest to the House that some means might well be devised to try to devote our Fridays to the discussion of important social issues which it was always the desire of Private Members to discuss on those days. That is a matter which might well be discussed through unusual channels.
Having said that, and coming back to the Amendment, I say that, in view of what the hon. Member for Torquay has said, I shall be bound to support the Government if a Division is challenged. I sincerely hope that on this matter a Division will not be challenged for the reasons which were so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I should like to add one point to what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale). He should have continued the quotation by saying:
You shall sit, if he sees reason.
Through the grouse and salmon season.
This certainly is a salmon Session if not the salmon season. The point the hon. Gentleman made gave a clue to something of importance which I think has been hidden. He indicated that we should devote the Ten Minutes Rule time almost entirely to social questions——

Mr. Hale: Motions on Fridays.

Mr. Fletcher: Motions on Fridays—but surely that makes it much too narrow. I remember that not long ago we talked about the prevention of cruelty to animals and the docking of horses' tails in Scotland. Those were not national questions. Surely the essence of this matter is that there should be complete freedom. If a Member wishes to discuss something which affects the area he represents and which has to do with nationalisation, he is perfectly entitled, and should be entitled, to do that. No reproach should be made to him because he happens at the same time to raise questions which


have been brought into being by nationalisation.
I think that, inadvertently, the hon. Member was narrowing the rights of the Private Member. We must recollect that in making use of the Ten Minutes Rule, and any other of the rights of the Private Member, an hon. Member must be allowed to discuss what he considers important himself. It should not in any way be considered beyond the point which I think the hon. Member inadvertently indicated, and which might tend towards using this Rule far too much.

Mr. Nicholson: The other day, when discussing this matter, the Lord President produced as the only reason against the Ten Minutes Rule the fact that it took Government time. I hope that in his speech now he will produce some evidence showing how much Government time was taken by it before the war. I content myself with that request, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is a good House of Commons man and is anxious to protect the rights of hon. Members on both sides.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). I hope I am a good House of Commons man. I try to be, because I have a duty as Leader of the House, above all in that capacity, to represent to the Government the rights of the House of Commons, and I try to do so. I could not give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he asked, and, indeed, my argument about the Ten Minutes Rule, at any rate, as things are, is not so much about the encroachment on Government time, though that is a factor which is not altogether excluded from my mind.
Frankly, my bigger consideration is protecting the House and Private Members. I know there was some indication of disagreement to the effect, "Let's go on sitting until 11 o'clock" though in those days the House did not start until 2.45 p.m.; admittedly that gave another three quarters of an hour. Well, there is a difference of opinion about it, and my judgment is that there is a large body of hon. Members who would not like to go back to 11 o'clock, though there are others who would. Hon. Members have

got a day, and whether the House forfeits another half an hour or whatever it may be on the Ten Minutes Rule, obviously the Government business will certainly take that much longer, and still more so on Committee Stages. But, then, we have had the experience on both sides of hon. Members talking until satisfaction was reached or until actual exhaustion brought proceedings to an end.
Believe it or not, I am absolutely sincere when I say that I am fundamentally concerned about preserving the rights of back benchers. It is inevitable that Front Benchers will talk. I talk myself, at varying length. Today I was very good on other days, I am not so good, and may take longer. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench also talk. It is often a complaint that they take too much time, and I have a lot of sympathy with that view, and that, by the time the Front Benchers have had their go, the time for back benchers is limited. I have a lot of sympathy with them. It is the case that, on the Ten Minutes Rule, so called, with ten minutes one way and ten minutes the other way and about ten minutes for a Division, half an hour has gone, and, under the Standing Orders, there can be more than one Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule.
My business is to study the House of Commons, and it is a most interesting place. It reserves the right to take up one position one day, and to grumble about having taken it up a fortnight later. It is one of the charms of this democratic assembly. I have it in my bones that, if this were agreed to, within a month hon. Members would be complaining about the encroachment on the time for general debates in the House. On the practical point, my hon. Friend, and, indeed, hon. Members opposite, have been good enough to say that we have gone a long way on this matter. I do not challenge the argument that the House has its rights under Standing Orders, but the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, who functions as Deputy-Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and I have considered this in a most sympathetic manner, and I thought that we had gone a very long way to assist the House.
The other point is a practical point. What is the advantage of the Ten Minutes Rule? It is not an advantage for the presentation of Bills. [HON. MEMBERS:


"Oh."] I shall come to the advantages in a minute. In the net result, it is not an advantage, because under the Rule as to presentation, if an hon. Member presents his Bill, the fact is that he has presented it and he has got it, up to that point. [Laughter.] It is true that then he must try his art in trying to sneak the thing through.
An hon. Member opposite gave us an illustration of the Ten Minutes Rule, and was boasting about the manner in which he sneaked the Bill through and got legislation on the Statue Book on the nod. He spoke for six minutes under the Ten Minutes Rule, which was very decent of him, and saved the House four minutes. After that, he said he got the Second Reading on the nod, the Committee stage on the nod, and, as there was no Report stage, he got the Third Reading on the nod. Legislation on the nod is not a particularly bright achievement of the House of Commons.

Mr. R. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I certainly did not boast about it; I was informing the House how it came about, and the point was that I had taken care to get my Bill supported by the Minister of Health and by Members of all parties, and I had a House of 300 interested in what was happening. I had to see dozens of other hon. Members to explain it to them, because without that, it would have been almost impossible.

Mr. Morrison: I am not grumbling at the hon. Gentleman; indeed, I congratulate him on his Parliamentary skill. It is obvious that he is a born Parliamentary manipulator. I am afraid of his qualities, because he has been most skilful and I congratulate him upon it. He has brought forward this example of the way in which it is possible to pass legislation on the nod, but I remember the Leader of the Opposition denouncing us for turning Parliament into a sausage machine, pouring out legislation in a most shameful manner.
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his boast, and I congratulate him, but he had better be careful lest the country gets the idea that Parliament passes legislation on the nod—although in this case we might think it was pretty innocent. But if the hon. Gentleman had brought in his Bill on presentation, he would have had just as good a chance, I submit—

[Interruption.] Yes, he would have had just as good a chance as he had under the Ten Minutes Rule.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a lot of legislation goes through this House without even a nod? I refer, of course, to Statutory Instruments.

Mr. Morrison: That is a totally different matter, and, far from it going through on the nod, the hon. Gentleman knows how the whole House is kept up at night discussing Prayers, and quite rightly, as they do at present. This is not a fair analogy. I only say that, if the hon. Member had presented his Bill in the ordinary way, with the skill and ability which he obviously possesses, he would have stood just as good a chance of getting the Bill through as otherwise.
The advantage of the Ten Minutes Rule is that it gives hon. Members the chance to make speeches which will be reported in HANSARD and elsewhere, and I am not going to underestimate that consideration. I do submit to the House, however, that in existing circumstances, with the House adjourning at 10 o'clock, it will cramp the style of back benchers in the subsequent day's Debates, and I am firmly convinced that, within a month, I should have questions on Thursdays whether we were permanently extending the Sitting to 11 o'clock. I know that some hon. Members would like it, and that there are hon. Members who like staying out late at night, while there are others who do not, and I have got to take all God's children into account in this matter.
On the whole, I think the House would not like it. We do agree that the presentation of a Bill gives a substantial advantage and we think that the House should accept it for this Session. I do not say that for all time the Ten Minutes Rule will not be coming back. I am willing to think about it in regard to future Sessions; an hon. Member has asked me to do that, and I shall do so. I cannot give any undertaking or promise in the matter.
There is another alternative in order to protect Private Members on ordinary Sittings of the House, and that might be to make this provision operate on Fridays which are Private Members' days, and which I do not think would prejudice the passing of a Bill or a Motion moved


upon those days. I should be perfectly ready to consider that, and, if it were the general wish of the House, I think that is a possible solution. It is not a matter on which the fate of Government depends; it is a procedural matter, but I assure the House that I have been considering it with my right hon. Friends on the basis of the general convenience of the House, and, honestly, at any rate in the circumstances of this Session, I think it would be best to let the Motion go through——

Commander Pursey: On the nod?

Mr. Morrison: Heavens, no; not on the nod.
I should be willing to think about the Friday point favourably, and certainly in connection with any future Session, but I think it would not be unreasonable for the House to accept the Motion and let it go at that, unless it wants us to consider the Friday point further. I hope that may be agreed to.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 235.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
[4.53 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Adam, Richard
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Keenan, W.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphllly)
Kenyon, C.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C W


Anderson, F. (Whitehavan)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
King, H. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Kinley, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Ewart, R.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D


Ayles, W. H.
Fairhurst, F.
Lang, Rev G


Bacon, Miss A.
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, F. (Newton)


Balfour, A.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Finch, H. J.
Lever, L. M (Ardwick)


Bartley, P.
Follick, M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)


Benson, G.
Foot, M. M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M


Bing, G. H. C
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McGovern, J.


Boardman, H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McInnes. J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Ganley, Mrs C S
McKay, J (Wallsend)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gilzean, A.
McLeavy, F


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McNell, Rt. Hon H.


Brookway, A. Fener
Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P C
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brooks, T. J. (Normanlon)
Greenwood, Anthony W. J. (Rossendale)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, C. F.
Manuel, A. C


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Burke, W. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Mellish, R. J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Messer, F.


Callaghan, James
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Carmichael, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hall, J (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.


Champion, A. J
Hamilton, W. W.
Monslow, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W.
Morley, R.


Clunie, J.
Hardman, D. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Cocks, F. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Hargreaves, A.
Mort, D. L


Collick, P.
Harrison, J.
Moyle, A.


Collindridge, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mulley, F. W.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hayman, F. H.
Murray, J. D.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)
Nally, W.


Cove, W. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Neat, H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, P
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)
Oldfield, W. H.


Daines, P.
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hoy, J.
Orbach, M.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')




Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Padley, W. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pannell, T. C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paton, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.


Dodds, N. N.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pools, Cecil


Donnelly, D.
Jeger, G. (Goole)
Popplewell, E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras S.)
Porter, G.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Proctor, W. T.


Dye, S.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pryde, D. J.




Pursey, Comdr. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Rankin, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
West, D. G.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr. B.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Richards, R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, George


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Royle, C.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, S S (Nelson)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Simmons, C. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Slater, J.
Viant, S. P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wallace, H. W.
Woods Rev. G. S.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
Yates, V. F.


Snow, J. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon M. (Bradford, C.)



Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Delargy.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Duthie W. S.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Eccles, D. M.
McAdden, S. J.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Elliot, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
McCallum, Maj. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Fisher, Nigel
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fort, R.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
McKibbin, A.


Bell, R. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclay, Hon. J. S


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclean, F. H. R


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Birch, Nigel
Gates, Maj E. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Black, C. W.
Gridley, Sir A.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Grimond, J
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.


Bower, N.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Boyd-Carpenter J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)


Braine, B.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Maude, J. C. (Exeter)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Maudling, R.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mellor, Sir J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hay, John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Bullus, Wing Commander E E
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Butcher, H. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Nicholls, H.


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicholson, G.


Channon, H.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.


Colegate, A.
Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hope, Lord J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford S.)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon O.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F C
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crouch, R. F.
Hyde, H. M.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Cundiff, F. W.
Kaberry, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Keeling, E. H
Raikes, H. V.


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Rayner, Brig. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Langford-Holt, J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Renton, D. L. M.


De la Bère, R.
Leather, E. H, C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Llewellyn, D.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roper, Sir H.


Drewe, C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Ropner, Col. L.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Russell, R. S.







Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Studholme. H. G.
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Scott, Donald
Summers, G. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
Sutcliffe, H.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Watkinson, H.


Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)
Teeling, William
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wheatley, Major M J (Poole)


Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Crovdon, W.)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Snadden, W. McN.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. [...]
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Tilney, John
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon. E.)


Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Touche, G. C.
Wills, G


Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Turton, R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)


Stevens, G. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wood, Hon. R


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.
York, C


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.



Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vosper, D. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Pickthorn and


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Viscount H'nchingbrook.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That—

(1) save as provided in paragraphs (2), (3) and (5) of this Order Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting for the remainder of the Session;
(2) Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 1st December, 26th January, 9th and 23rd February, 9th March and 6th April;
(3) on and after Friday, 20th April, Public Bills other than Government Bills shall be arranged on the Order Paper in the following order:—Consideration of Lords Amendments, Third Readings, Considerations of Report not already entered upon, adjourned Proceedings on Consideration Bills in progress in Committee, Bills appointed for Committee, and Second Readings; and Bills so arranged shall have

precedence over Government Business on that Friday and the following Fridays, namely, 4th May, 8th and 22nd June;
(4) the ballot for unofficial Members' Bills shall be held on Thursday, 16th November under arrangements to be made by Mr. Speaker, and the Bills shall he introduced at the commencement of Public Business on Friday, 17th November;
(5) unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 24th November, 8th December, 2nd and 16th February, 2nd and 16th March, 13th and 27th April, and 1st and 15th June; and no Notices of Motions shall be handed in for any of these Fridays in anticipation of the ballots under paragraph (6) of this Order; and
(6) ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall be held after Questions on the following Wednesdays, namely, 15th and 22nd November, 24th and 31st January, 14th and 28th February, 4th and 11th April, and 9th and 30th May.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.3 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Now that the talking and Divisions—I will not say the tumult and the shouting—of the last few days has died, the lot falls to me to initiate the serious legislative business of the House by moving the Second Reading of this Bill. Although I shall not prophesy whether or not the Session will go out like a lion, it is not perhaps inappropriate that it should come in like a lamb; and this is a veritable legislative lamb. Like all the Bills with which the Law Officers are associated, it is short but not cursory. It is as clear as the mysteries of the legislative craft make desirable. And I hope it will turn out to be entirely noncontroversial and wholly commendable.
I must not claim all these virtues to myself, because this Bill bears a close family relationship to one which was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place, and which was there passed with the unanimous approval of all their Lordships then present. As it was not possible last Session to provide facilities for the further passage of the Bill through this House, the Bill lapsed; but when we saw this orphan of the legislative storm lying upon the wayside, we realised it was in the public interest, and indeed a matter of some urgency, that legislation should be passed in regard to the matter. So, although I am not the putative father, I am the adoptive father of this little Measure.
The Law Society, although it is established under a Royal Charter and although it has been made the chosen instrument of a large number of Statutes, is a voluntary society, composed of such solicitors as choose to join it and to pay its subscription. And it is a society which, in the main, finances its manifold activities out of those subscriptions paid by its own members. But it has been recognised for a long time that many of its functions are of such general concern and necessity to the whole body of the solicitors' profession that all solicitors, whether they choose to be members of the

Law Society or not—which is a matter entirely for their free discretion—should make some financial contribution towards the activities of the Society.
In 1922 it was provided that those contributions should take the form of a fee of £1 paid by the solicitor on taking out his annual practising certificate. Since then, the scope of the statutory functions of the Law Society and its various public responsibilities have increased so considerably that the revenue secured in that way, from the fee of £1 on each certificate, has become quite inadequate. Indeed, the Government have found it necessary to pay an Exchequer grant of £2,500 each year to enable the Society to discharge certain of its vital functions.
This Bill, therefore, provides that the fee which should be payable in future, on taking out the practising certificate, should be such sum not exceeding £5—I understand the maximum is not likely to be asked for at the moment—as may be determined by the Master of the Rolls, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The object of the proposal is to spread the cost of these functions over the whole body of the solicitors' profession, but to do that only in regard to those functions which are imposed by Statute upon the Law Society, and not in regard to those which are merely discretionary and which it can pursue or not as it chooses and which it pursues, if it does, at the cost of the subscriptions of its own members.
Perhaps I might say a word or two about the Law Society generally, and about the particular statutory functions to the discharge of which this Bill will make an additional financial subvention.
Members on both sides of the legal profession have been traditionally the subject of rude suspicion and ribald jest, and as for the lawyer in politics, perhaps occasionally with justice he has been regarded as an object of suspicion, a mere political hack who, "if not actually hired, waits anxiously and expectantly upon the rank," although I have myself never understood why it was more of a derogation to say of a person that he was a hired A.G. than to say of a person that, for instance, he was a hired P.M.G. But there it is—these beliefs die hard.
But the truth is, I think, that in modern times, although the attractions of the legal profession have certainly not increased.


the members of it have shown a steadily increasing, and now very high, sense of public duty and responsibility, and I have no doubt at all that that is very largely due to the encouragement which the Law Society and, on my side of the profession, the Bar Council, have given to a corporate sense of public responsibility, of service and of obligation in return for the privileges which members of the legal profession enjoy.
Much of the work of the Law Society is, of course, discretionary, of a voluntary kind, not imposed by Statute. It is, for instance, a learned society representing the profession, constantly called upon to give advice and assistance to Government bodies, local authorities and other bodies of that kind on matters which have legal implications, and its experience is always at the disposal of the Government. I must, indeed, myself acknowledge with gratitude the assistance which, during these past five and a half years, the Law Society has always been ready to give to the Government and, indeed, to me personally.
On innumerable occasions the Society has prepared, no doubt at no little trouble and expense, evidence for Royal Commissions which have been set up, for Departmental Committees and bodies of that kind—Committees dealing with the reform of the company law or the reform of the patent law, for instance; the Committee which is now sitting under the Master of the Rolls to consider the methods by which the cost of litigation may be reduced and the processes of litigation may be expedited. To committees of this kind the Law Society has given the utmost assistance.
A notable example, of course, is the work of the recent Committee on Legal Aid, under Lord Rushcliffe. The scheme which was finally adopted by Parliament for providing legal aid was conceived by the Law Society and, in particular, by its indefatigable secretary, Mr. Lund. After a suitable period of gestation in the Committee, it is now being brought into active life by the Law Society and Bar Council in co-operation and, in particular, with the assistance of the distinguished solicitor, Mr. Littlewood, all of them acting as accomplished accoucheurs.
The House may like to know—and this is something which I mention in passing

—that October was the first month in which the legal aid scheme was in operation and in that time no fewer than 9,060 applications were made for legal aid in the High Court, involving, of course, a great deal of work and a great deal of study by the Society's various local committees, which have been set up in order to handle the applications. While it is too early to say how the scheme will work eventually, I think one can say that, while obviously it must have teething troubles of one kind or another, it has so far, in this short time, been operating with remarkable smoothness, so far as one can see, and with close co-operation between the two branches of the profession in the public interest.
The direct expenses of that scheme are being met by a direct Government grant but, in fact, there will be many incidental and indirect matters arising out of the scheme which will involve the Law Society in additional working expenses—expenses which will not be reimbursed and which it will have to meet out of its own funds. One matter to which I attach great importance is the disciplinary functions which are now reposed in the Law Society under statute. It is most important that they should be discharged efficiently and with expedition. It is in respect of those functions that the Government have been making the Exchequer grant of £2,500, but the cost of those functions at present—and I suspect that this figure is likely to increase considerably—is nearly three times as much. When this new scheme under this Bill is in operation and the additional revenue is obtained from the practising certificates, it will be possible to relinquish the Government grant of £2,500, and, consequently, this Bill will provide a little relief to the Exchequer.
Then there are the very important accountancy functions which are also imposed under statute, under which the Law Society is required to keep a very close watch on the accounts of solicitors so as to see that each of them, individually, keeps proper accounts, that their accounts are audited and that any solicitor who transgresses in these matters is dealt with. In that connection, again, there is the administration of the fund out of which clients who have suffered loss from any default on the part of a solicitor may be compensated.
Another most important function—again one which is charged on the


Society by statute—is in regard to legal education. Most of the fee which is received on the issue of the practising certificate is, in fact, devoted to the purposes of legal education. The position is that the revenue which the Society derives from examination fees and sources of that kind is quite insufficient to cover the cost of the Law Society's law school in London and the grants which it has to make to the law faculties of the approved schools in the provinces. As one who once taught in a law faculty, and who taught himself what little law he knows by purporting to teach it to others, I realise the great importance of not only maintaining these grants to the provincial law schools but, indeed, of increasing them. In fact, the Law Society has been unable to increase them at all since the end of the war and it is manifestly desirable that they should be increased.
The truth is that, looking at the statutory functions of the Law Society generally, the cost of administering and discharging its various duties has been steadily increasing, in part because of increased costs generally and in part because of the fact that the duties themselves have become steadily more numerous. It seems to us to be in the public interest, therefore, that the Society should be put in a financial position to conduct its various duties efficiently and properly. It is no longer practicable merely to increase the voluntary subscriptions paid by those members of the profession who voluntarily decide to join the Society, nor is it indeed right that the burden of carrying out duties which are imposed by statute upon the Society for the benefit of the whole profession and of the public should be carried out at the expense only of those members who, for one reason or another, join the Society.
The proper course, as it seems to us, is that part, at all events, of the costs imposed by statute should be borne by all solicitors, whether members of the Society or not. These proposals which, as I have said, were first introduced in another place, have the full support of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the present Master of the Rolls and also of his predecessor, that most distinguished Master of the Rolls, Lord

Greene. I put them before the House as meriting not only legal support—and I observe that there are a number of members of my profession here, I hope to support them—but also lay support from the public. I commend them as assisting the interests of the public and promoting the public spirit of the profession.

5.20 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The learned Attorney-General hopes there will be lay support for the Bill. I do not know if he realised he was going to get it at once; but both my hon. and learned Friends who normally speak on these matters, unfortunately cannot be here today, and they have asked me to express their views and the views of the party on this Bill. The interesting thing, in view of our previous discussion that we have had—I am sorry to speak twice on the same day, and I suspect the same thing will be said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman); but I hope we shall, both of us, not make it a daily practice to speak more than once—the interesting thing in view of our previous Debate is that this Bill originated as a Private Member's Bill in the House of Lords. It was introduced by Lord Schuster, and now has been adopted by the Government, and brought in here as the first Measure of the Session.
We on these benches welcome its introduction, and we hope that it will have a speedy passage through this House, though, no doubt, hon. and learned Gentlemen will have matters that they wish to raise on it which I am not competent nor yet would wish to discuss from my inexperience in that field. However, merely speaking as a layman, I understood from the right hon. and learned Attorney that all that this Bill in fact did was tcy ensure that there was sufficient finance available in the right place for the Law Society to carry out what are now its statutory functions, because the previous finance at its disposal, which, I understand, dates from 1922, was not itself a very large annual sum; and would of course, with the change in the value of money, let alone increases in statutory functions, be no longer sufficient. That seems to me to be merely making it possible to carry out in the future what Parliament in the past has decided should be carried out, and if that is all there is to


it, then I cannot see that there need be any objection in any quarter.
It does, however, call one thing to the attention of Parliament, I think; and that is that it is undesirable for Parliament to impose functions upon people and expect them to carry out statutory duties, and not simultaneously see that they are sufficiently endued with the funds to do what they are ordered to do. So perhaps in future—it does not apply now—perhaps in future when, I do not say the Law Society, but any other body, is ordered by Parliament to do something, I think we should be a little more careful than we have apparently been in the past to see they are put in a position to do it. I quite understand how it happened. If we have a series of amending Acts, each one only slightly extending functions, it is very hard to get to the moment when we can say, "Now we must give them more finance." Apparently that time has now been reached in this case. That is all, as I understand it, the Bill is intended to do, and we wish it well.

5.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: With the motives behind the Bill I, like probably most other hon. Members, find myself in complete agreement. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, the effect of this Bill will be to relieve the Exchequer of some of the expense which it at present bears. Although I am in agreement with the motives that lie behind this Bill, there is one aspect of it to which I should like to take exception. This House, it seems to me, is being asked once again to pass a vote of no confidence in the eminent and learned Gentleman who occupies the distinguished position of the Master of the Rolls.
I should like to submit to the House that the actual amount which the Council of the Law Society thinks ought to be charged to solicitors is not a matter of earth shaking importance. It is a matter upon which, of course, the views of the Law Society would be entitled to the utmost respect; for this reason, that the Council of the Law Society would not propose any alteration of the fee for practising certificates unless it had very good reasons for doing so. This Bill enables the fees for the practising certificates to be increased up to a sum of £5; but before whatever increase the Council

of the Law Society may think proper can be put into effect, it has to receive the approval of the Master of the Rolls. To that, of course, I see no objection. What I think is quite unnecessary is that the Master of the Rolls has to go to get the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and of the Lord Chief Justice.
It is a matter which, in my view, could well be left within the competence of the Master of the Rolls himself to decide in association with the Council of the Law Society. I know that this provision, this kind of tripartite consultation between three of the most eminent judges in the land, is a continuation of what appears in the 1932 Act. In the time at my disposal I have not been able to lay my hands upon the particular statute—which originated this tripartite consultation—it is one of the 27 Acts which the 1932 Act consolidates—and I do not know who the Master of the Rolls was at the time when this proposal for tripartite consultation was first put on the Statute Book. Perhaps, some other hon. Member later on in the discussion will be able to enlighten us.
But what I do, in all seriousness, want to urge is that it is surely unnecessary that three of the most eminent judges should have to put their heads together before there can be any increase in the fee for the practising certificate. It seems to me to be a relic of the past. In my view, advantage might have been taken of this opportunity to simplify the procedure somewhat. Let us consider an anomaly that may arise. The Master of the Rolls may say or come to the conclusion that the fee ought to go up. He may, perhaps, get the Lord Chief Justice to agree with him. The Lord Chancellor, who is superior to either of them in the official hierarchy, if he disagrees, will be overruled by two of his judicial subordinates. It does seem to me to be quite unnecessary, and the only caveat I enter upon this occasion is for the purpose of suggesting that for a fairly simple matter of this kind it is surely unnecessary to resort to a top-heavy procedure involving three of the most eminent judges in the land to come to a conclusion with the Law Society as to what the practising fee should be.

5.28 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I am glad I am present on this occasion when this Bill comes before the House


for Second Reading. I think I am the only professional Member in the House who is neither a solicitor—and, therefore, directly imposing penalties upon himself—nor a member of the other branch of the profession who have certain gains by assisting solicitors. I am in the happy and independent position of being neither one nor the other—and not even a judge. In these circumstances, I think I am completely independent in what I am going to say.
The right hon. and learned Attorney-General went through the various functions of the Law Society. He omitted one function for which we are all indebted to them, and that is their hospitality from time to time; and it is on those occasions when most of us learn what are the difficulties of those who manage the Law Society. All I can say is that when the Law Society comes to Parliament and asks for something, I do not believe there is any Member of either House, lay or professional, who would hesitate to give them what they ask.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I would not go as far as that.

Sir P. Spens: There may be one or two members of one branch of the profession who may want to enter a caveat to that, and perhaps I had better tone it down and say that in both Houses there would be an enormous majority in favour of giving the Law Society what they wanted.
The Law Society have two main functions: education, to which the learned Attorney-General has referred, and discipline. It is through those two great functions that they have made what is called, I think rather unkindly, the lower branch of the legal profession in this country stand higher than the corresponding practitioners in any other part of the world. That is due to that education and that discipline, and when the Law Society, speaking through the mouth of the Attorney-General, tell us that they have not got sufficient funds adequately to carry out one or other or both of those functions, there can be no hesitation whatever, and we should give them what they ask. The way in which they ask—namely, by imposing penalties upon themselves—is something that might well be taken note of by other bodies of citizens in this country. They could have come and asked for different assistance

from this House, and I believe that we might have found our way clear to do something for them.
The only point I am wondering about is this. It is quite true in one sense that this is a comparatively small annual increase for which they are asking for the certificate, but the important thing to bear in mind is: What does it cost a young man on being admitted? What has he got to pay out to be admitted; and what other annual obligations, if any, has he got on his personal pocket? I remember very well, in earlier years than I am afraid most hon. Members in the Chamber at this moment will remember, when the difficulties of managing clerks to get education and to get themselves admitted were very much greater than they are today. In my very early days I was one of those who endeavoured to teach—although I am bound to say that I do not know that in those days I knew a very great deal myself—for two or three years a class of managing clerks at the Workingmen's College in Camden Town. It was to those sorts of expedients that the education of that branch of the profession was reduced in those days. It is very different now.
But having had that experience in my early days, I say that anything the Law Society asks for to assist them in the education of those who desire to become solicitors, and anything they ask for to keep those who are admitted up to the standards which we take as a matter of course in the profession in this country, ought willingly to be granted by this House. I have great pleasure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with you in the Chair, in giving all support to this excellent Measure.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I apologise to the House for addressing it a second time on the same day, but in view of the fact that everybody who has so far addressed the House on this Bill—except the layman who spoke for the Opposition—has been a member of the other branch of the profession, and as the money is to be paid by solicitors, I thought that perhaps it might not be out of place if a solicitor, had a word to say about it before we part with the Bill, more particularly as there are a number of hon. Members on both sides who are solicitors, and who on professional points like to consult one another from time to time. I am bound to


say that we have not had the opportunity of consulting one another about this Bill, but I think it would be safe to say that even without such consultation, none of us is in the least degree critical of this Measure or would wish to withhold support from it.
I think, and I believe the others to whom I refer would think, that the case or this Bill is amply made out, and the House ought to give it an easy passage. Nevertheless, I should like to protect myself as a solicitor from the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), that we should tell the Law Society in advance that we are prepared to give an easy unopposed passage to anything they might at any time care to propose.

Sir P. Spens: I have not said that. I hope I did not go quite as far as that.

Mr. Silverman: It was because I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was going quite as far as that, that I ventured to interrupt him to say that, speaking for myself, I would not go as far as that. I am relieved to hear that he would not go as far as that either. Indeed, this Bill is really an illustration of how necessary it is—although on this occasion we are all in favour of it—that the House of Commons should not take anything for granted in these matters. There are a great many people—certainly a great many members of the Law Society—who would be in favour of making membership of the Law Society compulsory by statute and there is quite a strong case to be made for it. It is most interesting to see so many hon. Members opposite who almost foam at the mouth on every occasion when anybody refers to anything that might be called a "closed shop," some of whom are most enthusiastic for making membership of some learned society, the Law Society or other societies, compulsory.
I think that the Law Society has been wise to avoid the temptation—and it must have been a strong temptation—to ask the House of Commons for powers to make membership compulsory. It is already a "closed shop" in a very true sense, and a necessary sense, in that nobody can practise this profession without satisfying the Law Society of his standards, both by way of legal education, by way of character, and by the constant

supervision of his professional conduct, the inquiry into complaints, a strong disciplinary code, and all that. That is quite right. It is very good trade union practice, and I am all in favour of it. I am only surprised that some hon. Members opposite are in favour of it for the learned societies, but opposed to it for the trades.
One of the consequences of not having compulsory membership of the Law Society is that, up to now, those who have been members of the Law Society have had to pay part of the financial burden which really belongs to the whole profession, and what we are really doing in this Bill is making sure, without making membership of the Law Society compulsory, that every member of the profession shall pay his reasonable proportion of the expenses of those statutory functions which can only be discharged, and which by statute must be discharged, by the Law Society. It is for those reasons that we are in favour of it and we hope the House will accept it.
Mention has been made of other professions, and in moving the Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the legal aid scheme, and to the fact that the Act enacts almost exactly, though not quite, a scheme formulated by the Law Society itself. I see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health sitting on the Front Bench. I am wondering how much easier a time he might have had if in the Health Service he had had a body like the Law Society to deal with instead of a body like the British Medical Association. It is an example of which our profession is proud, and we hope that other professions may some day follow suit. Meanwhile, we welcome and support this Bill.

5.41 p.m.

Brigadier Medlicott: I would like, as a back bencher on this side of the House, to say my word of welcome to this Bill, which performs the relatively unusual task of extracting money from the pockets of the lawyers. That is not always the result of legislation passed in this House. I ought, first of all, to declare my interest in this matter by saying that I am a practising solicitor and also a member of the Law Society, although, as already has been said, this is not a Bill from which practising solicitors will derive any financial benefit—rather the reverse—we shall derive a much


more important benefit from this measure, in that it is another valuable contribution towards the maintenance of the standards of our profession.
I am not sure that I share the anxiety expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) with regard to consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. I think, speaking from a personal point of view, that solicitors rather value this association with the very highest dignitaries of the profession. We are, after all, as solicitors, officers of the court, and I think we like to feel that the eminent gentlemen at the head of the legal profession are taking, from time to time, an interest in our welfare, even though on this occasion it will be at our expense.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has mentioned the question of membership of the Law Society. Like many other solicitors, I have been a member of the Law Society all my practising life, but I would be as strong as anyone could be in opposition to any measure to make membership compulsory. It would be equally undesirable to attempt to bring pressure to bear on non-members by financial or other means; but nothing of that kind is attempted here.
This is a very proper measure which is now proposed. As time has gone on, Parliament has seen fit to place upon the Law Society many statutory duties, and, although it is almost as dangerous to praise one's disciplinary body as to criticise it, I think it is in order to say that the Law Society has discharged its functions in these matters with great dignity and success.
One of the results of this Measure will be to spread throughout the whole profession, irrespective of membership of the Society, the additional cost of carrying out the statutory duties we have placed upon the Law Society. For that reason, and having great confidence not only in the Society itself but in the very happy working arrangements which have been arrived at between the Society, on the one hand, and the Master of the Rolls and the learned Attorney, on the other, I think that this measure should enjoy our united support.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: After the discussions that we

have had during the past few days, it is welcome to enter into the calmer atmosphere of professional discussion on a matter which, I am sure, will command whole-hearted support from all parts of the House, whether from members of the solicitors' profession or from lay quarters. It is a very pleasant feature indeed that we can rely, as we can, on the support of lay Members of the House in matters which appertain to our profession.
It is useful at this stage, now that this measure is before us, for this House and for the country to realise the tremendous changes which have taken place in the solicitor's branch of the profession since 1922 and the present day. The fee that we are being charged is £1 per year, 15s. of which goes for education and the other 5s. for the duties which the Law Society have to carry out and which are imposed upon them by statute. Since those days, I have been listing the number of obligations which have been imposed upon the Law Society, and I find that there are in 17 Sections since 1932, 17 obligations and responsibilities imposed upon the Society by statute, and, in addition, there are 13 responsibilities imposed upon the Registrar of Solicitors by statute.
I think that in view of those immense responsibilities the profession is entitled to be reinforced, particularly having regard to the changes which have taken place in the solicitors' branch of the legal profession. In 1922, the solicitors' branch of the legal profession was more or less a closed shop. Only those of the better-to-do sections of the community could enter their sons in the profession, because, first of all, there was the heavy stamp duty of £80 imposed on the articles, of clerkship, and, in addition, the articled clerk or his parents had to be prepared to pay a premium to the solicitor to whom he was articled. Then, in spite of this burden, there was only a limited field for him when he qualified, whereas today the solicitors' branch of the profession has been thrown open to the community, largely due, if I may say so, to this Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is quite right. I am being factual about it. We have reduced the stamp duty from £80 to 2s. 6d. In addition, we have made available to all members of the community opportunities of having protection by being advised by solicitors and barristers. There is now


no longer one law for the rich and one for the poor. I do not say that with any sense of disrespect to the Opposition.
There are further opportunities for those who enter the profession, without those financial handicaps, because of this new legislation, of earning a livelihood. My point, therefore, is that because there are more opportunities for members of the community generally to put their sons and daughters into the profession, and because when they get into the profession there is more opportunity of their earning a livelihood, the additional amount which the Law Society is calling upon those who enter the profession to pay by way of annual payments—the sum of £5 maximum—is by no means a burden on those who are in the profession at the present time or on those who will enter it in the days to come.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House. [Mr. Wilkins.]

Committee Tomorrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-one and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, until the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and fifty-two, being expenses which under any Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys."—[Mr. Jay.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 25 to 27.
It may be within the recollection of some hon. Members of the Committee that the effect of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945, was to prohibit borrowing by local authorities, otherwise than from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The Act was intended to be temporary in character. It will lapse in the ordinary way next month unless it is decided to extend it. We have put down this Amendment, not to deprive local authorities of the advantages of that Act, but to afford an opportunity for discussion, and to ascertain the views of the Government as to the conditions under which this Act ought to be continued.
I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us whether it is intended that the restrictions the Act places upon the borrowing powers of the local authorities are to be made permanent. Is it intended to make them a permanent part of the law relating to local authorities, or is it the intention that the matter should be reviewed again at the end of 12 months; or will the restrictions be continued thereafter in some altered or modified form? I hope the Financial Secretary will he able to tell us whether the local authorities are to be permanently restricted in this way, or whether they are to be given some greater latitude to borrow, otherwise than from the Commissioners.
There are one or two further matters that I desire to put to the Financial Secretary. Many hon. Members may be aware that it is common practice in certain parts of the country, more particularly in the north of England, for local authorities to borrow small sums of money from their ratepayers on mortgage of the rates. Mortgages of that type are a very suitable form of investment for small savings, and they have the advantage that they generate a certain amount of patriotism in the


districts concerned. Local authorities which have been accustomed to borrow on these terms attach some importance to their being able to continue to do so.
The regulations which have been made under the Local Authorities Loans Act. 1945, permit local authorities with outstanding debts of this nature to continue to borrow, but restrict their powers to do so in certain directions. They are precluded from borrowing in excess of the maximum sum outstanding on this type of mortgage between the end of the financial year 1938–39 and the time when the Local Authorities Loans Act came into operation in August, 1945. This restriction is really a purely artificial and unnecessary one. In view of the fact that this Act was passed in the last few months of the war, it may have been thought necessary that local authorities should not be encouraged to borrow in excess of the amounts which they then had outstanding on this type of security. I remember the Bill passing through the House, but I cannot now recollect the reasons for this restriction.
There is really no longer any reason why local authorities should be restricted to the sums outstanding at the end of the war. Nor is there any reason why this form of borrowing should necessarily be more expensive than borrowing from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The money offered will, no doubt, be at no higher rate of interest than the rates charged by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. It has this further advantage from the standpoint of the Treasury that it may relieve the Commissioners of the obligation to make sums available at a rate of interest which is certainly at present not remunerative.
6.0 p.m.
There is a further point I wish to put to the Financial Secretary. The Public Works Loans Act, under which the Commissioners operate, was passed 75 years ago. At that time it was not contemplated that it would be used for the general purposes of local authority borrowing. The result is that the Act in some respects restricts unduly the conditions under which the Commissioners are able to make advances to the local authorities. Some of the provisions of the Act seem now no longer to be appropriate. In particular, the Commissioners are required under their existing powers

to adopt a very narrow view of their obligation to take security. They take the view, no doubt rightly, that the Act of 1875 requires them to relate each loan to the specific purpose for which it is authorised.
In making advances in the circumstances which were contemplated in 1875, no doubt it was thought a good thing that the Commissioners should look rather narrowly at the security. But today the system works badly. Take the case of a large city which comes for a loan for a number of different purposes. The Commissioners require the local authority to allocate each part of the loan to each individual purpose for which it is raised, and, indeed, to each individual loan sanction which has been obtained for that purpose. When the local authorities used to go into the market for a general loan upon the security of the rates, it was not necessary to relate each part of the loan to the specific purpose for which the loan was intended to be used.
Why is it necessary for the position in relation to a loan from the Commissioners to be any different from that? It is really a very inconvenient arrangement that the local authorities should be expected to relate each part of the loan which is raised to the individual purpose and individual loan sanction which has been obtained for that particular purpose. It is a system which local authorities find extravagant, both in manpower and in the expenses of the loan.
No useful purpose is served by this arrangement. If the provisions of the Act of 1945 are to be continued in any permanent form, the Act of 1875 should be modified so as to relieve the Commissioners from the rather narrow restrictions under which they have been placed in regard to their obligation to take security for the sums which are borrowed. My hon. Friends and I have no wish to deprive the local authorities of any advantages which they will get from the extension of the Act; but I hope that the Financial Secretary, when he replies to the Debate, will be able to give us some information about the matters which I have raised with him, and in particular some indication whether this Act is to be made permanent, and, if so, whether in its present or in some modified form.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The Government is asking the Committee to continue Section 1 of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945, and I gather that the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) is not seriously quarrelling with our main intention. That Act, as has been said, compelled local authorities to borrow through the Public Works Loans. Board except where they had special permission from the Treasury to borrow otherwise. The purpose of that arrangement was, of course, to introduce a more orderly system for the raising of capital for local authorities at a period when we realised there would be something of a scramble for capital of all kinds. Indeed, Sir John Anderson, in introducing the Bill at that time, said its purpose was to arrange these matters in an orderly fashion and avoid a competitive scramble for capital.
There was, therefore, in effect, an agreement between the Government and the local authorities that, in return for the Government's undertaking to make finance available readily and cheaply through the Public Works Loans Board for approved projects, the local authorities would agree to refrain from going to other sources of capital, where, of course, they might have to compete with one another, with industrial demands, or with whatever it might be, thereby causing a scramble and forcing up rates of interest against themselves. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that that system has worked very smoothly in the last five years. The Government have been providing the local authorities with nearly £300 million of finance annually largely for housing at a rate of interest which is lower than not merely that which operated after the 1914–18 war, but lower than that in the period immediately before 1939.
The main purpose was to avoid a scramble, which might have put rates of interest up contrary to the convenience of local authorities themselves and the tenants of the houses which they might be going to build. That argument applied not merely to any capital in the public issue market, but in a lesser degree to other forms of borrowing, of which the local mortgage arrangements were most important. It is possible if a loan were likely that there might also be competi-

tion for that sort of finance. Because of that possibility it was laid down in the original Act that there should be a limit on the amount which local authorities could borrow. There again, with the consent of the Treasury, they were permitted to go beyond that limit. In very few cases have the authorities borrowed by that method anywhere near up to the limit. Total borrowings, as a matter of fact, are only a very small part of the total which was permitted by the Act. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if there were any particular cases where arguments could be advanced for departing from the general principle we would be perfectly prepared to consider them, as indeed we have been doing in the last five years.
The hon. and learned Member asked me specifically what the Government's intentions were about the limits set on this form of borrowing. In general, the situation in the capital market is not very different in principle from what it was at the end of the war. As everybody knows, a tremendous number of capital development projects, both municipal and otherwise, are coming forward, and a good deal of money is going out to finance them. Our policy is to continue as in the last few years, in relation to mortgage borrowing and other forms of finance, but we are open to consider any financial proposition which the local authorities may bring forward.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether the Government intended to make these restrictions permanent or whether we were going to bring forward another annual Act in a year's time. I must point out that when the Government propose legislation of a permanent character the Opposition are inclined to wish it to be annual, and when we propose annual Bills, they want them to be permanent. In this case I can relieve the anxiety of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and say that we have not finally made up our minds on the point. Our present intention is to continue the measure for one year, because we are satisfied that present conditions require it, but we have not finally decided what we should wish to do in a year's time.

Mr. Hutchinson: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that I did not argue whether these powers should be either temporary or permanent, but that I in-


vited him to tell us what the Government intended to do.

Mr. Jay: I was not accusing the hon. and learned Gentleman in particular of the sentiment to which I referred. I hope that I have now been able to answer his question.
Another question was whether we proposed to alter the provisions of the Act of 1875 which require the separate amounts of money raised by the Public Works Loans Board to be allocated to specific projects which local authorities were promoting. We received that suggestion from the local authority organisations only in the last month or two, and we are examining it. We are not yet satisfied that there is any case for making the change. It can be argued that it increases the power of the Government to control the timing and so forth of our capital investments if that condition is still retained by the central authority, but we have not reached a final decision about that. We shall certainly take into account what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I have done my best to answer his questions, and I hope that after these explanations the Committee will be ready to agree to the schedule.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, the Committee as a whole would, I am sure, be disposed to agree with the account that he has given of the good value that this Measure has given to local authorities and to the country. I wish he had said one word about the position which arose in the autumn of 1949 when, owing to the change in interest rates, local authorities were, for a time at any rate, able to procure money from the Public Works Loans Board at a lower rate than the Government themselves would have had to pay if they had gone into the market to raise money. As a result of that position—if my memory serves me aright—there was somewhat of a disorderly scramble by the local authorities to obtain long-term loans for projects which were at that time not ripe for development.
The whole purpose of the original Measure was to avoid a disorderly scramble of that character. I ask the hon. Gentlemen to tell the Committee, since this is the only occasion we have during

the year to review the working of these operations, whether the Government's plans for preventing a disorderly scramble by local authorities to obtain money at a rate cheaper than the Government could obtain at that time have met with success. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps say one word upon that important aspect of the matter.

Mr. Jay: I did not refer to interest-rate policy because I was inclined to think that it might not be in order on the present Amendment, but if I have your approval, Major Milner, I will say just this much in answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. It is true that a year ago there appeared to be a tendency for local authorities to attempt to borrow from the Public Works Loans Board, in advance of their needs, the finance for capital development projects which had been approved. The Government were exceedingly anxious not to raise interest rates at that time, as indeed we are now, because we have always felt that the paramount consideration should be to keep housing costs down and therefore to keep rents and housing subsidies down. We decided to take action by another method, by direct consultation with the local authorities, to see that the rate of borrowing at the admittedly low rates of interest did not exceed the finance required for current needs for actual physical development. Those methods have been successful, and I think we can say that at any rate for the time that problem has been satisfactorily solved.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 48 to 50.
The effect of my Amendment would be to remove from the Bill the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. I would like to make it plain that I do not attack the whole principle of that Measure, which in many ways has served a useful purpose. I do not want it to be thought in any quarter of the Committee that I or anybody on this side of the Committee is in any way condemning the main purpose of the 1945 Act, but the Act now requires considerable overhaul if it is to continue to serve the useful purpose for which it was originally intended.
I am fortified in that view by the words of the Minister of Health when he was


moving the Second Reading of the Bill, in November, 1945. He then said:
The House will note that at the end of 1947 the Measure will die.
Then come words which I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has had cause since to regret:
This is my own estimate—perhaps vague—of the period when the worst housing stringency will have ceased to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 1945.]
Unfortunately, owing to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has pursued in the years since that date, the worst housing stringency has not ceased to exist, and owing to the failure of the right hon. Gentleman to solve this housing problem, the necessity for some kind of protection of the kind provided in that Act is, alas, still necessary. It is very important that the House should now determine exactly what kind of legislation is necessary three years after the date at which the right hon. Gentleman estimated the Act would become redundant. It is somewhat satirical that three years after that time we should now be moving to include the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
The particular criticism which I have to make of the Bill is that it sets up tribunals which are not competent to discharge the functions committed to them. I raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill, and since then events have confirmed how right I was in complaining of the constitution of the tribunals. Many of the difficulties which have arisen in these tribunals would have been avoided if the advice which I then gave had been heeded, and that was that these tribunals should have at least one legal member. Unfortunately, that was not done, and there have been numerous cases where injustice has arisen as a result of the decisions of these tribunals, which could have been avoided if there had been legal members on those tribunals. I believe that these tribunals, which, I repeat, have served a useful function, and which I have no desire to see abolished, would have been considerably improved had that course been taken.
Had that been done it would have been all the less necessary to have an appeal. My principal criticism of the Act as it

stands at the moment is that it provides no kind of appeal whatever. That is another point which was urged from this side when the Bill was originally before the House. It is a very distressing fact that these lay tribunals have been set up and invested with very considerable powers, and powers which have been considerably increased since the original Act was passed. The tribunals are conducted by laymen; they have no rules of evidence on procedure of any kind whatsoever. They can find completely irrationally, and they have no basis on which they are directed to find. Yet, in spite of those unusual powers, there is no kind of appeal at all from them.
I regard that as a dangerous process for us to embark upon. We were all agreed when the tribunals were set up that they were necessary to meet the problem which faced the country at that time, one which we all hoped would be solved in a reasonably short time and one which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health promised would be solved; but as he has failed to fulfil that pledge we have to consider the position now, and decide whether it is right that this kind of non-legal tribunal should continue to exercise the powers which it has. I should like to remind the Committee of the powers which have been added to the tribunals. There has been added the administration of the Rent Control Act, 1949, a most complicated Measure which many lawyers have the greatest difficulty in interpreting. Although the interpretation of that Act has been added to their functions, the tribunals are still composed of laymen and there is still no right of appeal from them.

Mr. Janner: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say in how many cases there are no lawyers on these tribunals? Perhaps he could tell us so that we may know what the position is.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman should address himself to what I am talking about, namely, that the 1946 Act does not require that any member of the tribunal should be a lawyer. I agree that in practice some legally qualified persons have been appointed, and that reinforces my point. There is no provision under the Act as it stands requiring the appointment of a legally qualified member, and


I believe that it should be amended accordingly. I do not think that the law should be administered in the way that the hon. Gentleman believes, namely, that something should be done regardless of what is said in the Statute. The principle in this country is that the law must be laid down in the Statute. I hold more firmly to that view by reason of the fact that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) disagrees with me. The principle in this country is that the law is made in Parliament, and in this respect there is a danger to which the Committee ought to address itself because so many people, including the hon. Gentleman, believe that something in the nature of a droit d'administratif is satisfactory.

Mr. Janner: Nonsense!

Mr. Marlowe: They believe that these things may be done by administrative action. I do not accept that. The constitution of courts which will have to decide between various members of the public should be determined by Act of Parliament and not by administration. Therefore, I propose to address myself to the Act of Parliament, and my point is that the Act does not require that any members of these tribunals shall be legally qualified.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Nor is it required that magistrates shall be legally qualified.

Mr. Marlowe: I agree, but I am not dealing with that because I should be out of order if I went outside the scope of the Bill. I am very much confirmed in my view by a high authority, Lord Justice Denning, whom few would dispute. In a series of extremely interesting lectures, he dealt with the point of the proper function of tribunals in our present legal system. We have all to accept the view that all the disputes between parties in this country nowadays cannot be dealt with by the courts because there are so many that it would be impossible to bring them all before the courts. I am prepared to accept the view that there must be tribunals to deal with certain kinds of dispute. They are part of the fabric of our law today. In his lectures referring to the question of tribunals, Lord Justice Denning said:
The uneasiness which has been felt about tribunals is undoubtedly due to the fact that

their development is closely linked with the enforcement of policy and on that account their independence is suspect.
Few would disagree with that. He goes on to say:
The independence of the tribunals is reduced to vanishing point in cases where, as sometimes happens, the appeal from the tribunal is only to the Minister and not to the courts.
The Lord Justice was, therefore, expressing a hostile criticism of tribunals in which there was an appeal only to the Minister, but in this case we do not even have that, for there is no appeal to anybody. The point is important because when dealing with that situation Lord Justice Denning went on to give his view. He said:
How then is this independence"—
that is, the independence which we all agree should attach to these tribunals—
to he achieved? The answer is by giving a right of appeal on a point of law to a superior court which is itself known to be independent.
[Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health saying that it is so. He does not understand his own Act. The position at the moment is that there is only an appeal on a question of jurisdiction and not on a question of law. There is an appeal, as there is bound to be, only if the tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction, and it has been possible to take a case to the high court on the ground that the jurisdiction has been exceeded——

The Attorney-General: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the tribunals are not independent or are too independent?

Mr. Marlowe: I was adopting the view of Lord Justice Denning that if there is no right of appeal, the tribunals become suspect as being not independent. That is his view, and it was that that I was quoting.

6.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Is that quite right? I remember reading that important and interesting lecture at the time. Was not his point this, that in the case of tribunals under the control of the Minister, and in relation to which there was an appeal to the Minister, the question of independence might be suspect? I have never heard anybody suggest, and I do not know if the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting——

Mr. Marlowe: I have quoted the words.

The Attorney-General: But I want to see whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that any of these tribunals are not completely independent.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not trap me into saying anything more than I have said. I know he wants to do so. What I have said, and what I adhere to, is that I dislike a tribunal which may be suspect.

Mr. Janner: Suspect by whom?

Mr. Marlowe: I can tell the hon. Gentleman. It is usually suspect by the unsuccessful litigant. It is not desirable that that should be so. Whichever party it is, people should feel, when they go to any of our courts for a decision, that they come away fully satisfied that at least there was no suspicion of partiality or of non-independence.

The Attorney-General: I am loth to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again, but surely he knows the famous couplet relating to the criminal courts:
No victim felt the halter draw
With good opinion of the law.

Mr. Marlowe: I have had a good deal to say in regard to these tribunals, but I did not know that they had acquired the power of capital punishment! I am dealing with the tribunals exercising these particular functions. My objection to them is that, manned as they are without a legally qualified member, exercising considerable powers without any guidance from the statute as to how those powers are to be exercised, it would be less objectionable if there were some criteria provided by which they were to act.
For instance, some quite well known formulae might be adopted whereby, before arriving at a decision as to a rental value, they should have regard to the rateable value, or to the character of the neighbourhood, or to the price paid for the dwelling, or to some facts of that kind. But this Act gives no criteria of any kind, and it is a fact that if one of them chose to behave quite irrationally—to give an absurd example, if somebody paying a rent of £3 a week went to the tribunal and it said, "We shall reduce the rent to 2s. 6d. a week," something utterly out of proportion to the rental

value and which neither party had suggested—there would still be no remedy; there would be no appeal on that. It is most unsatisfactory that we should give to courts in this country power to behave in that way. The right of appeal would become of less importance if there were a legally qualified member, but when there is not one it becomes all the more necessary.
In support of what I have said about that, I want to refer to what has been said in one of these cases which reached the High Court on the question of jurisdiction which, as I have said, is the only method known of doing so. In giving this decision the Lord Chief Justice said:
The real complaint is that the tribunal disregarded the principles of natural justice.
I think it was accepted by all parties that this is what has happened in that case.
The Lord Chief Justice went on to point out that although principles which ordinarily we would consider to be those of natural justice had been disregarded, the High Court could do nothing about it. He said later:
These proceedings have not been conducted in a way which would be tolerated in an ordinary court, but the ordinary courts do not have statutes which permit them to act on their own knowledge or without any evidence.
He was saying, in effect, that these tribunals have a statute which permits them to behave like that. It is deplorable that we should allow to continue in existence an Act which the Lord Chief Justice says permits people to behave in a way which would not be tolerated in an ordinary court.
I know the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health does not take kindly to judicial comment, but in order that he shall not think the Lord Chief Justice was in any way exceeding the bounds of propriety in that case, I will let him know that the Lord Chief Justice ended by saying:
While it would be improper for us in any way to question the policy of the Act, I feel that possibly it might be a more satisfactory state of affairs if there were some method of appeal to a central tribunal.
That is a method which I would happily accept. The advantage of a central tribunal of some kind is that one gets coordination of principle instead of, as is possible under the present system, a dozen different decisions all having no counter-relation to one another.
I believe that justice in this country is best served when people have resort to properly qualified courts to administer the law, and a person aggrieved by a decision of a tribunal of this kind has the right to go to a superior court to have that decision examined. I know that the Minister of Health does not accept that view. He takes an entirely different view.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan) indicated assent.

Mr. Marlowe: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman nods assent to that. He has himself on a previous occasion referred to such things as offering the possibility of what he calls "judicial sabotage." The right hon. Gentleman appears to be surprised?

Mr. Bevan: No, I accept that.

Mr. Marlowe: Nevertheless, I will remind other hon. Gentlemen. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate on the National Health Service Bill on 23rd July, 1946, at column 1983, the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the question of an appeal to the courts in respect of doctors dealt with by disciplinary tribunals. Anyone who reads the Debate will see that the right hon. Gentleman referred there to this process of "judicial sabotage," which he now says he endorses. May I say that I have a higher regard for the judges of this country than to believe that they wish to sabotage anything. The right hon. Gentleman does not accept that view. When he says "judicial sabotage," he means that anybody who disagrees with him has to be ploughed out of his way. What the right hon. Gentleman is really saying is, "I will not have a court of appeal in these matters. I will not allow any of these matters to go to the court, because I am afraid they will disagree with my view and that I shall not be able to get my way."
That is a grave danger. The independence of this country has been built up largely on the independence of its courts, and one of the greatest safeguards of our freedom is to allow all citizens to have resort to the courts when they are aggrieved. It is for that purpose that I thoroughly disapprove of this Act continuing in force in this form any longer, and that I seek to see it removed from

this Bill so that we may put in its place a proper Measure which will safeguard the rights of the people.

Mr. Janner: It is highly important that the country as well as the House should know what is really intended by those who are proposing the repeal of an Act which has played a very considerable part in helping to ease the housing position. Let us not misunderstand what this Act has done. There were 57,804 cases referred to these tribunals under this small Act. This number is apart entirely from those under the 1949 Act and the other rent control Acts which have been brought on to the Statute Book and which the Labour Government have endeavoured to keep on as high a level as possible so that people shall have protection for their homes.
Of those 57,804 appeals, 39,178 were decided and rents were reduced in no fewer than 26,907 cases. I quite understand why the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) wants to impose penalties on tenants by repealing this Act and by suggesting appeals or other delays so that the matters which are today being attended to—and very well attended to—by the rent tribunals shall not reach these successful results for the tenants.
What is even more important is that on an average the reduction of rent was 30 per cent., which means that in those 26,907 cases where there had been a reduction the tenants were being overcharged on an average at the rate of 30 per cent. Hon. Members opposite talk about the high cost of living and the non-retention of controls, and they ask the country to believe that as far as rents are concerned—and rents are, of course, one of the most important features of the household budget—the Acts which control those rents should be either amended or repealed.

Mr. Marlowe: No. I hope that the hon. Member is not intending to misinterpret me. If he will do me the honour of reading my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, he will find that I have supported this principle from first to last——

Mr. Janner: I know.

Mr. Marlowe: —and I have today said that I do not wish the tribunals to be abolished; I wish to help them to do their work better.

Mr. Janner: The hon. and learned Member must understand that his proposal can only be a question of the repeal of the Act. What he overlooks is that if there were such a repeal he would have no opportunity for some time anyhow of having any legislation at all on the Statute Book controlling rents of furnished lettings. What is also important to note is that by that repeal he might even introduce very great hardships under the 1949 Act, which to some extent drags the 1946 Act with it.
The question of appeal in this matter is not one that should be dealt with in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Member. In most of the tribunals there is already a lawyer either as chairman or as one of the members. Where that is not so, we have what is almost as good, if not quite as good: one of the officials of the tribunal is a lawyer—the secretary, for instance, who sit with the tribunal. I know that there may be some tribunals which make mistakes, but they are very few. For my part, I have not yet come across a tribunal which does not have a lawyer attached to it. In the main there are these lawyers available, as any practising lawyer who has attended these tribunals knows.
6.45 p.m.
The important point to be decided by these tribunals, however, is not, as a rule, a question of law. What legal questions are there? What are the tribunals set up for? They are established for the purpose of deciding whether the rent is a reasonable rent, and who can best judge whether the rent is reasonable than those local persons. They know the district and are capable of understanding all the prevailing circumstances. I know very well that there are cases when one has to argue a legal point, but in the main it is only a question similar to that referred to in the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member—the question of jurisdiction. Apart from that, everything else is pretty plain sailing, except the assessment of what the rent should be. In my contention, that assessment has been properly and adequately dealt with by the existing tribunals. That is shown by the fact that such a large number of rentals have been reduced.
If, instead of dwelling on Amendments which they say are necessary to the Act,

hon. Members opposite would say that the matter which is important is that the public should be made aware of the purpose of these Acts and should utilise them to the fullest and best extent, we should have not merely these 26,000 reductions of rent, but, in the opinion of the chairman of the tribunal in my constituency and of many other people on the tribunals, hundreds of thousands of cases in which the exorbitant rentals—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] Yes—hundreds of thousands of cases in which exorbitant rentals are being charged in respect of which this and the 1949 Act applies, would come before the tribunals. That would help to no inconsiderable extent in regard to the household budget, to which Members on the benches opposite are so accustomed to refer.
I know the position from the viewpoint of my own constituency and what happens in tribunals. I should like to refer to a few figures relating to the tribunal in my constituency, the chairman of which is a lawyer, but every member of which has a proper and full share in reaching decisions. There have been as many as 450 active applications, in connection with which the tribunal have made inspections of the properties concerned, have heard the parties, and have come to decisions. Their duties have extended even far beyond that, because—and this is not generally known—in Leicester, as elsewhere, they deal with numerous applications for advice and interview hundreds of people who attend at the office for information and advice. Their work is of immense advantage, not only to applicants whose cases are ultimately heard, but in preventing the extraction of unreasonable rents in the many cases where people come to them seeking advice.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Under which Section of the Act do the tribunal derive their powers to give that advice, and what happens where advice and information are given to applicants who subsequently come for a judicial hearing before the tribunal? How do its members then expel from their minds matter which they should not have heard behind the back of the other party?

Mr. Janner: I am obliged for that intervention which indicates what we want to find out. There is nothing in the Act which says that they must give advice.

Mr. Walker-Smith: But they can give advice.

Mr. Janner: There is nothing in the Act to prevent them from giving advice, nothing at all. Advice is given in order to try to avoid waste of time, and save trouble and expense. In the main, both parties willingly accept the advice given, with the result that, instead of rents being charged which otherwise would be unreasonable, those rents are properly adjusted.

Sir William Darling: That is prejudging the matter.

Mr. Janner: No, that intervention indicates how important it is that laymen should decide these matters. If we are to have appeals, that is the kind of question which would be raised time after time and innocent people giving good advice would be dragged into courts. Neither the owners nor the tenants would be in a position to meet the expense of the appeals. Instead of the tenant benefiting, many tenants would be prevented from getting their due rights because of their inability to meet the costs.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This is rather important, as I am sure the Attorney-General will agree. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) well knows that one of the reasons for the decision in the Park West case was that certain things went on behind the backs of the parties and that was one of the reasons for the decision.

Mr. Janner: Mr. Janner indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member tries to shrug off questions which are really vital. Will he say whether the chairman of his tribunal, when a case comes before him on which he has previously given advice or received information, openly explains to all parties that this has happened, and what is the effect of what has taken place in private behind the backs of the other party? Does he, or does he not?

Mr. Janner: I have not said that this takes place behind the back of anyone. It is really naive to suggest that the landlord would not know what the tenant was advised. He would come to the landlord, as a rule, in order to arrange terms. Of course, he would. The whole circumstances would be known, except in

exceptional circumstances. I have no doubt that the learned gentleman who presides over the court in Leicester knows he is doing his duties in a judicial manner and will be able in a proper manner to look after the interests of those who come before him.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that many people who have not let rooms before, and who are in doubt about what they should charge, come to these tribunals and ask what would be a proper rent?

Mr. Janner: That, undoubtedly, is the position and the hon. and learned Member for Hove knows it very well. The position in regard to these Acts is that we should do our utmost to encourage the tribunals to deal with as many cases as they can. Today is not the time, if there is ever a time, when we should produce legalistic quibbles in order to interfere with the working of these Acts. I hope that those who have raised this question will study the figures throughout the country and in their own constituencies. Let them go to their constituents and tell them how the tribunals have reduced the rents in their own constituencies. The hon. and learned Member for Hove might have a look at the figures for the Brighton district and he will see whether the constituency itself is prepared to adopt the views he holds.

Mr. Marlowe: I would remind the hon. Member that the case I quoted from the lower court, where it was said that it had not been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, came from Brighton.

Mr. Janner: Perhaps that was because of the influence of the hon. and learned Member there. I do not know, but if he will look at the figures he will see how many reductions there were in Brighton.

Sir Patrick Spens: I will try to be brief. There is not the slightest doubt that had I been in the House in 1946, I should certainly have tried to oppose this measure, or at any rate to obtain substantial Amendments. It was a temporary Act and is being extended for another year. I hope it will be one of the Acts which will come under very careful scrutiny for amendment, with other Acts relating to the control of rents.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Act is capable of being abused and is being abused. I wish to draw two specific points to the Committee's attention as to the way in which the Act is being abused. First, there is no obligation on a tenant to continue to pay the rent after he has lodged an application with the tribunal. There have been brought to my notice in my constituency cases where a tenant has come to agreement with the landlord, paid one week's rent in advance, and then lodged his application with the tribunal and paid no rent whatever during the weeks——

Mr. Janner: Mr. Janner rose——

Sir P. Spens: I am not going to give way, for I promised to be brief—during the weeks before the matter comes before the tribunal. With the tribunal in my area, it takes several weeks and when the case comes before the tribunal, if the tribunal makes an order—[Interruption]—I know there are powers, but, believe me, the landlord finds himself with a bad debt, which is extremely hard on some landlords.
The other matter which, to my mind, is much more serious, is that it is breeding a type of regular swindling tenant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it is, I put it as strongly as that. Let me explain. Five people are competing for a flat and one of them offers to pay so much more than the others. The landlord takes that person and four honest would-be tenants are excluded. The dishonest tenant pays his one week's rent in advance and promptly goes to the tribunal. He has signed his name to an agreement and done it deliberately but his word that he is prepared to pay that rent has meant absolutely nothing. He succeeds in outdoing four people more honest than himself, who were quite willing to pay the sum the landlord was asking, because he offers something more and then goes straight to the tribunal.
In those two ways this Act is being abused and I say quite frankly that it is demoralising a certain type of person. One realises how deep is the temptation under present housing conditions to get a lodging for one's family at any cost. I want the Minister to realise that this Act, if it is to be continued at all, needs grave

reconsideration and amending at least in those two ways—power for the landlord to ask the tribunal to order interim payment of rent and, above all, that the tribunal should ask as the first question, "What circumstances have changed since you entered the contract?" If today I sign a contract to pay £5, what right have I to go to a tribunal tomorrow to say that I should pay £4? It is absolutely demoralising.
This country has been built up on the word of our citizens being good in this country and everywhere, but this is an encouragement to a man to sign something today and immediately to break his word. It is as bad as some of our marriage laws, and I hope the matter will be considered.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: If it is correct, as the hon. and learned Member says, that landlords are prepared to let their places to the highest bidder, would not the difficulty he is claiming on behalf of the landlord be ruled out, if a landlord asked a reasonable rent and gave the accommodation to the first applicant?

7.0 p.m.

Sir P. Spens: The landlord does ask a reasonable rent, and in order to get the flat the dishonest fellow offers something more in order to get it.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: But it is the landlord who accepts it.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, but I have risen at this stage in the hope—I know it is not a very strong one—that the lawyers will shut up and let the lay fellows have a chance. Really, whenever the lawyers get on to a subject of this sort we get a lot of heat before the end of the day but not a lot of light.
The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), was a perfect illustration of the way in which it is possible to argue legal principle to the complete extinction of justice. He began with four abstract applicants for a house or lodgings going to an abstract landlord in an abstract situation. He then said that after they have discussed the matter one of the abstract applicants makes a contract with the abstract landlord, and immediately


after the contract has been signed he tears it up and puts a case to the tribunal.

Sir P. Spens: The Minister talks about my being abstract. If he wishes to have particulars about the real case I will send them to him. Neither the case of the non-payment of rent nor the case of a man bribing the landlord to let him have his flat is abstract. Both are actual cases which have happened in the last six months.

Mr. Bevan: I was proposing myself to concretise the case. The concrete situation is that here are four people badly in need of accommodation, and one individual has the accommodation to let. The concrete circumstances are that the individual who has the accommodation to let has an enormous advantage over the other four, and is able to abstract from the person to whom he lets the accommodation an entirely unreasonable rent, because if it is not unreasonable the landlord will have nothing at all to fear when the other party to the contract goes to the tribunal. The only reason the landlord has a grievance is because he has charged more than he ought to have done. The grievance can only arise in that way.
I have the utmost respect for lawyers, and also an affection for some, but I have noted over and over again that they always spend a great deal of time, quite properly, in defending legal forms, which I fully agree are exceedingly important. If legal forms are too frivolously violated I admit at once that justice itself is often mutilated. I agree about that. I am not in any way trying to say that the judiciary ought to be shorn of any of its powers, because in the judiciary resides the instrument which by and large protects just relationships between members of the community.
But it must always be remembered that in certain circumstances one can use legal machinery which is so complicated, so expensive, that at the end of the whole process injustice is done. If there was the right of appeal from these rent tribunals to a superior court it is fairly obvious at once that people in humble circumstances would be deterred from going to the tribunal in the first place, and in any case individuals with the longest purse and able to command this complicated machinery would get the better end of the bargain.

Mr. John Hay: The right hon. Gentleman has completely forgotten the procedure of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, which was mentioned by his right hon. and learned Friend in an earlier debate today.

Mr. Bevan: But it applies to the High Court, and I hope that if Mrs. Evans applies to the rent tribunal that she ought not to pay 10s. per week or 35s. per week as the case may be, and the difference involved is 2s. 6d. or 5s., we shall not invoke the machinery of the High Court for the purpose of settling a matter of that kind. Each one of 40,000 cases might be made a subject of appeal. I never want to impute motives, but I am never sure whether in a case like this the lawyers are acting as a good strong trade union in the matter, or whether they are really concerned about protecting the interest of the people who are involved.

Mr. Marlowe: Does not a good trade union protect its members?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, but in this case the lawyers are protecting the lawyers, not the tenants. I was interested earlier in the proceedings, when my right hon. and learned Friend was in charge of the Bill which came from another place, to hear the encomiums which were poured on the Law Society. I was very moved. It is obviously a society of great distinction. As I was listening to this speech I was at the same time looking at a letter which has been circulated to all the solicitor Members of the House of Commons by the Law Society on this very matter. I also recollected that most of those who had been supporting the Amendment thought it was desirable that these people should all have a lawyer and that if a lawyer was there then there would be more legal light. That does not follow at all.
Here is the Law Society, in this letter, committing two cardinal errors of law. It says:
It is noted that an Amendment"——
I gather that this is a confidential document.

Sir W. Darling: Surely it is privileged?

Mr. Bevan: It is not privileged. Any communication which is sent to an hon. Member of this House and which seeks to


influence the way he speaks and votes is not confidential.

Sir W. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman said it was sent to all solicitors who were Members of the House.

Mr. Bevan: I received it. I understand that the solicitors' group, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) referred earlier, has not considered this matter, so that it does not concern collective action by solicitors who are Members of the House.

Mr. S. Silverman: I would like to make it perfectly clear that my right hon. Friend is quite correct. For my part, I regard this Amendment as a bad one.

Mr. Bevan: I do not object. The Law Society is perfectly entitled to send circulars, and I understand that it is in quite frequent communication with the solicitors' group. I take no exception to that. What I take exception to is the Law Society misreading the law. The letter says:
It is noted that an Amendment in the name of Mr. John Hay, M.P., has been set down at the Committee stage of the above Bill.
The letter goes on to detail the Amendment, with which I need not weary the Committee.
In those circumstances you may be interested to know what types of complaint have been made by members of the profession to the Law Society. Roughly speaking, these may be said to fall into the following three heads. Absence of a right of appeal even on a point of law.
That is not correct. There have been 16 appeals. I agree they are limited to jurisdiction, but there is the right of appeal, and so that is wrong to start with. Then it says:
Appeal against an award of a tribunal"——

Mr. Hay: I do not wish to take up what the right hon. Gentleman would regard as a niggling lawyer's point, but the whole point we have here is that there is no right of appeal, as such, on a point of law. All there is is what is inherent in the power of the King's court to step in and correct what they think, or what is represented to them to be, an injustice, by some lay body.

Mr. Bevan: There is more than that. It is not only an appeal court against the decisions of a tribunal on the ground that principles of justice have been violated, I must correct what I said earlier; there have been far more than 16 appeals. I meant 16 successful appeals. Only 16 successful appeals have been made to the courts. So that it is wrong there.
Then it goes on to make a most extraordinary statement about the method of election of members of the tribunals. It says:
As the local authorities are responsible for the election …
Really, the Law Society ought to get itself right. These tribunals are not elected by the local authorities. As a matter of fact, the charge made by the hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment was that these are creatures of the Minister. They are appointed by the Minister. They are not appointed by the local authorities; and how the Law Society could have made this mistake I cannot understand at all. So, therefore, if the Law Society goes wrong in these serious matters on a thing which it obviously has studied, what guarantee have we that we would have legal light if we had a lawyer on every tribunal?
Of course, it does not necessarily follow that if we put a lawyer on a tribunal we get less light. That is the reason why there are lawyers on most of them; not always because they are lawyers, but because they are intelligent, influential, responsible and knowledgeable members of the community.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know the difference between a temporary power cut and having no electricity laid on at all?

Mr. Bevan: What the tribunals are asked to consider, as my hon. Friend for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has already been pointing out, is not some legal matter on which lawyers can guide the tribunals—and, indeed, if a lawyer tried to do so he would have nothing to go upon. What the tribunals are trying to decide is what is a reasonable rent, having regard to all the circumstances that they know about; not merely the district but all the circumstances of the household and so on. Quite often these tribunals visit the premises—[HON. MEMBERS:


"Always."] No, not always. It is not always necessary. But they frequently visit the premises to find out the circumstances, and therefore what they are really deciding is a matter of fact and not a matter of law.
It is not wrong that there should be no appeal against a decision on fact. There is no appeal against a county court decision, on a matter of fact, and so we are not violating the high traditions of British justice, or of the courts at all. All we have done is to evolve the kind of tribunal which is of easy and cheap access and to which the citizen in distress can appeal in order to get his distress remedied. That is all.
7.15 p.m.
There would be some justification for this Debate if we had not discussed this before, if we had discovered some defect in the Act which had eluded our scrutiny when the Bill was going through its various stages. But it was argued hour after hour at the time. It is no new thing, and what experience of the administration of the Act has shown is that our judgment was correct and the judgment of the hon. Member was wrong. In point of fact, it is not only that these tribunals have arbitrated with a singular degree of satisfaction in dealing with cases, but the easy access to these tribunals has kept down rents. It is known what rents are being fixed by the tribunal; the landlord uses that as a guide, and therefore the number of cases is lessened enormously. So I would ask that hon. Members should not try to make too heavy weather of this.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been good enough—because I do not always despise legal assistance—to furnish me with a very useful quotation. Reference was made to a case where it was alleged—and this is where I think the Lord Chief Justice got upset—that the principles of justice had been offended, that natural justice had been offended, but he did not find the charge substantiated. That is the decision he made. But when I ask myself what are the principles of natural justice I find it very difficult indeed to define them. It belongs to a 17th century conception of philosophy and not to a modern one at all:
The words 'natural justice' occur in arguments and sometimes in judicial pronouncements in such cases.

Then, says this legal luminary:
In so far as the term 'natural justice' means that a result or process should be just, it is a harmless though it may be a high-sounding expression; in so far as it attempts to reflect the old jus naturale it is a confused and unwarranted transfer into the ethical sphere of a term employed for other distinctions; and, in so far as it is resorted to for other purposes, it is vacuous.
That is Lord Shaw. I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving me such formidable support for a conclusion which I had already reached in my own mind. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendments they have moved.
As I say, there is no other important point which has been raised in this Debate. I think I may carry the House with me if I add this: These tribunals are accumulating a vast amount of very valuable experience which we may be able to use later on. As hon. Members may perhaps recall, the Ridley Committee recommended that in the fixing of rents generally, tribunals of this sort should be composed. I attach the utmost importance to a study of the way in which they are behaving. I am not suggesting that they are all right. There is a great variation among them. But if I read my newspapers correctly, there is quite a considerable variation among judges. I would not say that most of the courts of Great Britain reach the same high stage of distinction. Some of them seem to me to fall rather badly now and again. But I do not say that the courts ought to be abolished, because one, now and again, passes a bad sentence. Neither is it proper that we should say that because some of these rent tribunals have given decisions that other people regard as questionable the whole machinery falls into disrepute.
What I do suggest is that they form a very valuable reservoir of experience upon which we may be able to call when we come to frame very much more far-reaching legislation concerning rents generally. These tribunals work exceedingly hard. Very often they do a thankless job. It is not an easy job which they do. I am extremely grateful for the work that they have done, and I call attention to the fact that I doubt very much whether there are many countries in the world which could cover a country like Great Britain so quickly, easily and smoothly with so many competent people as those who sit on these tribunals.
Now that hon. Members opposite have ventilated their case, I hope that they will not press the Amendment. Before I finish, I must have my little dig at the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). He opened what he hoped, I am sure, would be a non-controversial case with his usual dig at me. He said that I had said in 1945 or 1946—and he is right—that I hoped that by the end of 1947 these tribunals would be rendered unnecessary because of the provision of adequate housing accommodation. I certainly said that, and I have given the explanation on more than one occasion.
It is unfortunate for me that I had been in office for so short a time that I was still credulously accepting the statements made by the Opposition. In 1945, when I assumed office as Minister of Health, there was put in my hand a White Paper which my predecessor had placed before the House of Commons. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is here, and she can confirm it. I read this document with very great interest, and I learned from it that His Majesty's Government had advised the House of Commons and the nation that if they provided 750,000 houses of all kinds every family in Great Britain would have a separate dwelling.
Hon. Members have had this before; they are going to get it again. I get the same arguments over and over again, and It is just as well that the House should be reminded of this. This should be recorded. Let the Conservative Central Office send this out in one of their circulars. The figure of 750,000 was made up of temporary houses, new permanent houses and of re-occupied war damaged houses. Those were the three categories. The White Paper said that if we provided 750,000 houses, every family in Great Britain would have a separate dwelling. Here was I, a young and credulous Minister——

Mr. Marlowe: I have listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has said on this point. May I take it that he is telling this House that, whatever his view of the courts is, he does not spurn the respectable matter of an alibi which Qo often occurs?

Mr. Bevan: It is no alibi. Here was the firm estimate made by the competent authorities of what was

required. I said, "This is easy. We can do this." And we did that, as a matter of fact, by September, 1948. That is, and always has been, the explanation; but it is not the explanation which the Central Office of the Conservative Party give. No, that is not good enough. What happened was that, as a consequence of raising the standard of living of the community and putting all our people in work, we disclosed a housing need which had always been there. Therefore, it is still necessary to protect tenants against lack of accommodation so that landlords cannot extract from them extortionate rents. That is the reason for this provision.

Mr. John Hay: I am certain that this debate has been useful and interesting to all of us, if for nothing else than to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe himself as credulous. That is an admission which I should like to keep carefully recorded for future reference. I hope that the Committee will come back now, after the interesting disclosures which the right hon. Gentleman has made as to his past history when he first went to the Ministry, to the subject of the rent control of furnished houses.
I should like to make the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) and myself put this Amendment down, not to have the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act abolished, but simply to secure by normal Parliamentary procedure the opportunity of discussing the working of the Act. It has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend that this was an Act originally passed to meet what the Minister himself said was a temporary shortage. There is no doubt that immediately after the war there was a very great lack of housing accommodation of all kinds, and particularly of furnished accommodation. When he introduced the Bill which subsequently became the Act which is now under discussion, the Minister described it as
… a kind of first aid treatment for the patient, who later, perhaps, will require a very much more radical cure… it will provide us with a great deal of valuable experience in the operation of rent tribunals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 1940.]
That was the situation then, and it is obvious now, four and a half years after the Act was passed, that it is no longer


to be considered as a purely emergency measure. The Government are now asking, by the passage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, that this Act shall be continued until March, 1951, by which time the Act will have been in operation not for the original two years which the right hon. Gentleman visualised, but for six.
Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend and myself—and I think I can speak for all on these benches—thought that this would be a good chance to discuss with the Minister and with the Committee, in as non-controversial a manner as we could, the working of this Act. Although none of us would deny that the Act has worked extremely well in the majority of cases, although none of us would deny that thousands of people have received great benefits and a great many rapacious money-grabbing people whom none of us would wish to countenance have been suppressed, none the less it is only right that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of considering whether or not a Statute which it has passed, and which it is now asked to make more or less permanent, is working well or not.
The remarks I want to make are directed to pointing out some ways in which I think this Act might be improved if it is to be a permanency, and it looks pretty much like it. Obviously I did not expect the Minister to say "Yes" or "No" to that. Whatever the housing shortage will be in a few years' time, we do not know; but if this Act is to be a permanency it is only right that Parliament should consider it from time to time. If any grave defects have appeared, we should remedy them by amending legislation.
I would say to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), that the whole point was to suggest Amendments which we personally thought might be of use. It is from that point of view that I wish to address the Committee. The first question I wish to ask the Government is for how long they visualise that this Act will be in force? I appreciate that it may be difficult to say, but, as we are asked to continue it for a futher 18 months, we should have some idea of what they have in mind.
Now is the time to review the working of the Act and, to a certain extent, to amend it: and that is our object. We

should, therefore, consider the working of the rent tribunals and of the Act itself. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the tribunals have dealt with a great number of cases. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, gave some figures which I am afraid I must dispute. My information is that there were 51,720 cases during the period from the commencement of the Act until March of this year. That is under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act and ignoring the cases under the new Act passed last year.

Mr. Janner: The figures I gave were from a list which included details up to 30th September of this year. They were only the figures relating to first applications. There were more when one takes into account second applications.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. I have not got up-to-date figures. I have the ones up to April of this year. Whatever the position may be, the latest trend is that the number of applications to the tribunals is beginning to lessen. I think it is the case that, over the first three months of the year, the number worked out at 3,315, which, taken over the 80 rent tribunals, would give three per week per tribunal. That is the average.
7.30 p.m.
I now want to address another question to the Minister on the subject of cost. I am not suggesting that we should be cheeseparing in this important work, but I ask the Minister this question. If the administration of this Act is going to cost us in the current year about £140,000, and in 1951–52 about £135,000, on the figures I have given, it would seem that the cost of this work to the community as a whole is about £10 per case.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the effect on these costs that would be produced by establishing a central board of appeal?

Mr. Hay: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to come to that point in due course and I will use it to clear up some of the misconceptions which hon. Members opposite may have. I have no estimate: I will say that at once.
I want to deal with the main point about the cost, which is whether something can be done to reduce unnecessary


expenditure, because, if the number of cases is going to rise—and the evidence points that way—it is possible that some consolidation of areas might take place. In other words, where there are tribunals not getting very much work, it is possible——

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that they will be paid for sessions.

Mr. Hay: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have raised the point, and no doubt he will remember it.
What has been the result of the decisions of these tribunals? My figures cover the period only up to March, but as the hon. Member for Leicester. North-West, has said, the reduction of rent ordered by the Tribunal in 22,000 cases was about 30 per cent. These are the figures given by the Minister of Health earlier this year. That example shows that the policy of setting up rent tribunals to prevent extortionate rents to tenants has been broadly justified. It has done a great deal to stamp out rapacious and profiteering landlords, because there are a number of them, although I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite that not all landlords are of this type.
I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, indicate his view that we on this side were concerned only with landlords, whereas he and his hon. Friends were more concerned with tenants. I may be misrepresenting him, but that was my impression of what he said. We ought not to take sides on that sort of matter I have asked the Government to remember that the vast majority of lessors are not of the rapacious and money-grabbing type. There have been reductions of rents in cases which I have personally known in which the reductions ordered by the tribunal made people actually run their business at a loss.
We all know that, since 1946, when the Act was placed upon the Statute Book, the prices of so many things have gone up, including the cost of furnishings, which has increased very seriously. Coal, gas and electricity have all gone up, as has the cost of cleaning. All these things have gone up, and the effect is that the new rents fixed by the tribunals in many cases leave nothing for the landlords themselves.

Mr. Bevan: There is one figure that is never mentioned in this connection, and that is the complete absence of voids.

Mr. Hay: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point. My own point is that, whereas prices have gone up, rents are still pegged at the 1946 or 1947 level, and sooner or later that is going to create a problem which the Government do not seem to have foreseen.
In that direction some kind of amending legislation should be considered. There is a major defect in this Act, and amending legislation ought to give power to the tribunals, in proper cases where they are satisfied that injustice is being done, to raise the rent. I am not going to take that point to too great length, but I would say that if a rent tribunal has the power of increasing rents, where it is satisfied that grievous hardship had been caused, it would be a two-way system of justice and not one-way as it is now. Just as there are unfortunate and helpless tenants, so there are unfortunate and helpless landlords, who are tied by the tribunals to letting their furnished accommodation at rents which show no remuneration at all.
There are powers for tribunals to raise rents in certain cases where there has been a change of circumstances and they have power to make an addition to the rent, but it has been my personal experience that rent tribunals interpret a change of circumstances as meaning something in the nature of structural alterations to the building, repainting or something of that kind, and do not take account of changes in the cost of providing furnishings, and so on. Where that happens, there is undoubtedly hardship upon the landlord, and the consequence is that all over the country there is growing up a continual tendency on the part of potential landlords—people who would be prepared to offer furnished accommodation at reasonable charges, not extortionate rents—to be deterred from following that course because they are afraid of what may happen under the wording of the Act, for they know that they may put a person into the position in which he may go to a rent tribunal and get an almost permanent period of security.
On the general point, I think that something ought to be done to amend this Act


by providing power for tribunals in proper cases to raise rents.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the right of the landlord to appeal to the rent tribunal and have a rent adjusted from his point of view. Provision is already made for that. I take it, and if that is so, his whole case falls to the ground.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman has not followed what I said. I said that there was provision whereby, where there was a change of circumstances, the tribunal had the power to raise the rent, but that it has been my personal experience that in these cases the rent tribunal very often will not bear those words in mind. I know that they are in the Statute and that the tribunal is expected to do so, but frequently when one attends a tribunal one finds that it pays little regard to changes of circumstances such as the decline in the value of money and the increased cost of furnishings, and it is very often the case that the tribunal will say "We are sorry, but that is not, in our opinion, a change of circumstances." There is no right of appeal on a point of law, and that means that the landlord cannot go to any other body and say that the tribunal was obviously wrong because it had neglected to carry out the very words of the Statute. I think that is a very strong point, and I will make further reference to it later.
That is the view which I have formed of the attitude which some tribunals have taken, and very often the general impression has got about that they exist for one purpose only—to reduce rents. The consequence of that is that many people are inclined to say, if they find that they cannot afford to pay a rent which they have been happy to pay until then, "I will go to the rent tribunal, and they will reduce it." I am sorry that is the situation, because it was not what Parliament intended and not what the Minister intended. When the Bill was going through the Standing Committee, the Minister said:
This is rent-reducing legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 6th December, 1945; c. 1066.]
The impression has got about generally that the tribunals exist for one purpose only, to reduce rents, whereas under the Statute they have the duty, either of

maintaining the rent as originally agreed between the parties, or of reducing it, or of dismissing the reference altogether if they are satisfied that the rent is a fair one or is below what is considered to be fair.
There is a certain type of tenant, with whom we are all familiar, who is prepared to threaten the landlord with the power that he has of going to the tribunal, in order to demand all sorts of concessions. I speak from personal experience. I have halt a number of cases where lessors of premises have been put under discomfort and unhappiness because a particular tenant has been threatening them by saying, "Unless you do this, that or the other thing for me, and provide me with additional services which you never contracted to give, I will take you to the tribunal and have the rent reduced." That situation does not make for amicable relations inside a house, and it also grievously deters other potential lessors from letting.
I support my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion that there should be a right of appeal. I appreciate the Minister's point of view when he says, quite rightly, that these are informal proceedings, we do not want to run the risk of saddling people who come to the tribunals with the possibility of their being landed with a large bill of costs if the matter is taken to appeal. The right hon. Gentleman asked just now what other matters, apart from rent and the question of jurisdiction, can be discussed at an appeal. I would say that I am quite certain that there should not be an appeal against the rent itself, except where it was obviously a breach of all the canons of natural justice, to use the very words which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from an eminent Scotsman here—and this Act, of course does not apply to Scotland. If we had that, then I am certain that it would be a very bad thing.
But we must remember that there is the point of jurisdiction. Tribunals often exceed their jurisdiction. They may completely misinterpret the words of the Statute itself, and the result may involve great hardship to the various people who have the decision given against them because there is not the slightest ground of appeal except the power to go, under very strict and narrow limits, to the Divisional Court of the King's Bench and ask for


one of the prerogative writs. If the tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction—and it is said that this has been done in 80 cases since the tribunals were set up—then the party against whom the decision has been given can go to the High Court and get a prerogative writ and bring up the proceedings for consideration.
May I remind the Committee of some of these cases'? There was the case which came from Hull, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will remember it because I think his Department had to pay the costs of it. In that case, the tenant had not asked for a reduction of his rent. All he had done was to say that he wanted a period of security. He was not interested in rent, but only in security. The tribunal, without allowing the landlord to call any evidence at all or to put up any case, said, "We will reduce this rent." When they were taken to the High Court they were told that they had exceeded their jurisdiction. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, who is a member of my own profession, appreciates the point I have in mind. We are saying that there should be a right given to people to go, not necessarily to the court, but to a central tribunal.
7.45 p.m.
Then there was the case mentioned, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith)—the Park West case—where the local authority referred no fewer than 550 tenancies of a block of flats to the tribunal. These references were made to the tribunal completely regardless of the wishes of the tenants, the great majority of whom did not want their rents reduced, and in this case also the High Court said that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction.
Again, there was the Walton Hotel case in which the Paddington rent tribunal went so far as to reduce the weekly charge for a hotel room with bed and breakfast. They ought never to have done that, and in this case also the High Court had to tell them so. Then there was the case in July this year where the Wanstead and Woodford rent tribunal was found by the High Court to have gone unlawfully on to a landlord's premises without any authority at all and ordered him to produce certain receipts at the tribunal hearing later that day. The court

was very annoyed with the tribunal and subsequently an apology was issued.
Another case which I will mention shows that in many instances tribunals have strained to give themselves jurisdiction over properties where they were never intended to have jurisdiction. There was the case from Blackpool where the Lord Chief Justice, in reprimanding the members of the tribunal for what they had done, said:
We venture to think it is not part of a tribunal's duty to endeavour to find, by giving a strained construction to ordinary language, a means of exercising their control over unfurnished lettings.
That is one of the problems with which we have to deal, and that is why I should like to see amending legislation with, possibly, a right of appeal on strictly legal grounds on a point of law. If desired, there could be a central rent tribunal for the whole country, or, if preferred, one for a number of areas, or something of that sort, as is done in the case of tax and pension appeals. Then, I believe, we should run very little risk of tribunals exceeding their jurisdiction on points of law, and it would give security to the landlord or the tenant so placed. If the tribunal gave a wrong decision, the people concerned would know that they had some right of redress. At the moment, except by the very cumbersome proceedings of the Divisional Court, there is no way by which these decisions can be reviewed.
The present system has created considerable hardship and a great deal of dissatisfaction over the operation of the Act. The courts have been very careful not to lay down any rules for rent tribunals; they have said quite deliberately that that is the function of the right hon. Gentleman. He has, I believe, given certain directions, and he made great play a little while ago with a circular which the Law Society, I think quite properly, sent out to all Members of this House who are solicitors. That circular referred to the fact that certain secret circulars had gone out from the Ministry of Health to different rent tribunals telling them how they should carry on their work, and the sort of rules they should follow. That is the information I am given. I see the Parliamentary Secretary in his place, and if I am wrong he will no doubt correct me. If I am right, I hope he will say that no more secret circulars will be sent out.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): The circular to which, the hon. Gentleman refers was sent out at the start of the operation of the Act. An apology was given at the time, together with an undertaking that there would be no repetition, nor has there been.

Mr. Hay: I am grateful, as I am sure the Committee will be, to hear that from the hon. Gentleman.
I want also to support what my hon. and learned Friend said about there being a legally qualified member of the tribunal. I know this always causes trouble, but I think there is less risk of mistakes being made if in the Statute it is clearly stated that one of the members of the tribunal should have legal qualifications. I should be very glad to know if the Minister has any exact figures and if he could assure us, for example, that one member of each tribunal was qualified.

Mr. Bevan: I thought we had argued this. I see no justification at all for this. Legal forms, legal procedure, proper cross-examination and proper deposition of evidence and things of that sort are a protection, not the fact that there is a lawyer.

Mr. Hay: I quite appreciate that. It is the point I was coming to immediately. If one had a legally qualified member of a tribunal there would be far less risk, to put it no higher, that one will not get the sort of behaviour that has taken place at some rent tribunals before which I have been, where no evidence is called, where there is no right of cross-examination, where every party is at liberty to make all sorts of statements, without the slightest justification or verification. There was a case, for example, where I appeared before a rent tribunal where my client, who was a tenant, not a landlord, gave evidence. The landlord was then allowed to comment on what the tenant had said in evidence—not to crossexamine—but make all sorts of unfounded allegations, which were not proved.
I believe a tribunal should act and operate in a judicial manner. I do not care how that is achieved, whether by having a legally qualified member or by right of appeal to a central tribunal. I think justice, in the classic words, should

not only be done but be seen to be done, and that, unfortunately, is not what is happening in many of these tribunals.
Among other important points that I might add, I must say that I am concerned at the way some tribunals refuse to allow references to be withdrawn when made. That often happens. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I hope he will say that the Government will consider amending legislation to say that where both landlord and tenant sign their forms and put them into the tribunal, no withdrawal should be allowed except on terms which the tribunal is prepared to agree are just to both parties. Frequently, when the tenant puts in a form to the tribunal, and, subsequently, the landlord and tenant come to agreement as to the future rent to be charged, the tribunal refuse to allow it to be withdrawn.

Mr. Janner: It is to protect the tenant and, in certain cases the landlord, because increases are permitted as well.

Mr. Hay: That is the point which the right hon. Gentleman himself dealt with in earlier debates when the Bill was going through. My point is that if two parties, having come to some arrangement in law, then say they want to change it and, in the meantime one has applied to the rent tribunal, they should be entitled to go to the tribunal and say, "Please tear up that form because we have agreed on the rent." The right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Bill was to prevent people from going to the tribunal, because he said that by example we must try and make certain that rents are fair and reasonable and that the Government would be delighted if people did not have to go to the tribunals. That is not what is happening now. Tribunals are frequently straining, after jurisdiction, to give themselves a chance to try cases which neither party wishes to be tried at all.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that tribunals are actually canvassing for cases of discontent?

Mr. Hay: I think the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) is rather misrepresenting what I said. I thought I had made it clear by the illustrations given. There is a sort of tendency


for tribunals, once reference has been made to them, to exercise jurisdiction at once, and there is nothing the parties can do about it. If the hon. Member reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find from the examples I gave that that will be clearly understood.
Then there is a question of the informality of tribunals. This was a great point when the Bill went through the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman said, I think quite properly, that it is most important that we should have informality in these tribunals and should not make the rules too strict. I entirely agree. What has been the result? Their informality has often defeated its own ends. We have had all sorts of queer things done by these tribunals. I wonder whether the Committee has heard from time to time of the remarks of one chairman of a tribunal in London. The right hon. Gentleman has a wide and vast vocabulary, but I am sure this gentleman could easily beat him. Let me quote an example of what this gentleman said:
I am unable to appreciate why hard-working people should be compelled … to serve as an instrument for the masochistic vulpine cupidity of nauseous gain.
and
These zeugmatic owners in their zoot suits do not impress the tribunal.
Here is another case—and the Attorney-General will appreciate the legal reference here. May I ask what a tenant would make of these expressions if they were put to him, as in fact they were put to one tenant when he said he had left some clothes behind in his lodgings:
Good gracious! Then you were in manciplum… Your clothes are still hypothecated?
That is the sort of language which was used. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] At Willesden. This is the sort of thing that sometimes happens, and something ought to be done to tighten up the tribunals themselves.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Was it lay chairman, or a legally qualified man?

Mr. Hay: I am not certain whether he was lay or legal.

The Attorney-General: It sounds lay to me.

Mr. Hay: I am glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with the ideas of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health as to the necessity of not having legally qualified members of the tribunal.
I come now to the question of the security of tenure. I approve entirely—and experience has shown it is necessary—the idea of giving tenants three months' security of tenure in addition to the reduction of the rent or its maintenance at the same level. Under the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, that period of three months can be made entirely indefinite. The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, allows an extension of three months, but, when that conies to an end, the tenant can now apply for further security of three months, and so on indefinitely. I am certain that Parliament as a whole never wanted that to happen, because the Minister of Health, on the Report stage of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act said:
It must be remembered that it is not desirable to give the tenant an indefinite security of tenure, because we must not try to tie together, in the same premises, two people who are fundamentally in disagreement with each other. Therefore, an indefinite security of tenure, or too long a security of tenure, would have a disastrous effect upon the provision of furnished lodgings. I think three months is reasonable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 40.]
But as a result of last year's Act, it has become an indefinite period.
In "The People" of 17th July last year, the chairman of one London tribunal drew the attention of the public to the fact that there was this power to give almost permanent security. The article was headed, "This is your chance to catch the shark landlord—at last." He said:
In brief, the new law means that you can NEVER be evicted from furnished rooms if you behave yourself.
and the word "Never" was put in large capitals. He added:
That protection in the past belonged only to the tenant of unfurnished rooms and houses, but now it covers almost every tenant.
I would say about security that what is needed is that if the tenant wishes to get an additional period of security of more than three months, he should be able to secure it, but that the landlord also, in proper cases where the tribunal is satisfied, should have the power to go to


the tribunal, or perhaps to the county court, to say, "It is time this period of security came to an end." I should like to hear that the Government are looking at that point.
I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer, and I apologise for having taken such a very long time, but I have been waiting to raise this subject ever since I came into the House. It is something of which I have a certain amount of personal experience. I urge upon the Government that this Act, admirable though it is, fine work though it has done, certainly needs some amendment, and I hope the Government will introduce it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I hasten to assure the Committee that I shall not seek to emulate the length of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), for the very good and sufficient reason that I am quite confident that I could not succeed in emulating its quality, which, as the Committee will agree, was of a very high order indeed. He has covered the range of the problems associated with this Act and has given a most careful and detailed analysis which I hope will be studied with the attention that it deserves by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General.
I did not intend to say anything this evening, but a debate in which both the Minister of Health and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), participate is a debate in which it is difficult to resist the temptation to join. It so happens that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, are here, but both of them anticipated that I might succumb to this temptation and, with their characteristic courtesy, informed me that they had temporarily to withdraw, for the purposes of refreshment or other reasons, from the proceedings of the Committee—the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, by speech and the right hon. Gentleman by mime. I listened with interest when the right hon. Gentleman said that he regarded lawyers with respect, and some of them with affection. While, after 20 years or more, I still cherish the hope that I might occupy a place, however small, in his affection. I have never been able to persuade myself for a single

moment that he has any respect for the calling of which I am a humble practitioner.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Henley I have some—not a great deal—professional experience of this Act. I hasten to say that in my view the experience which comes to a man in his profession of the law is experience which he must treat with some discrimination when he is studying the general effect of legislation such as this, because, in the nature of things, the matters which come one's way tend to be the exceptional matters. There is always the danger for the lawyer of assuming that what is really exceptional is, in fact, normal. I always try to guard against that tendency.
Might I also say this, as a lawyer: I believe it to be a fact that most of these rent tribunals have legally qualified chairmen and, with great respect, I do not know that that of itself is as important as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) suggested. I rather agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is the following of the right procedure in these matters rather than the legal qualification of the chairman which is a guarantee of the interests of justice being served. A good many of these cases to which my hon. Friend referred, where tribunals have exceeded their jurisdiction, were, of course, cases where there were legally qualified chairmen, and I am bound to say that the legally qualified chairmen seem to vary a good deal as to their merit. Perhaps when the procedure is being overhauled some regard could be paid to that point.
In my view, it is almost more important, at any rate for what might be called the larger cases, to make some provision, not necessarily statutory, for a member to have some sort of experience of surveying or valuing, because that is the want which is felt very keenly in the larger cases which come before the rent tribunals. When this Act originally passed through the House it was visualised that it would cater mainly for the small case of furnished lodgings, as we generally understand the term, and I should like to say that, in my view, it is clear that some such legislation as this is necessary as part of the general machinery of rent control so long as the housing shortage continues. There is no doubt about that on any side of the House.
It is right, however, that the longer it continues the more we should try to get the procedure right. To do this it is necessary, first of all, to overhaul the composition and procedure of the tribunals in order to get justice done; and secondly, it is essential to get some machinery for appeal. It is quite true that this machinery of appeal would not be required and would not be used in the great majority of cases, but there is no doubt at all that many matters are tried under the jurisdiction of these rent tribunals in which there certainly should be an appeal in order that the judgment of the rent tribunal may be called in review, just as is the judgment of High Court judges in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he refers to motions of certiorari as appeals. They are not appeals in the ordinary sense of the word. They apply only in the case of excess of jurisdiction or where the award is bad on the face of it. As to the award being bad on the face of it, since it is the practice of most tribunals not to make what in law is called a "speaking order," that is to say not to give any reasons for decisions, a motion to quash their judgment will not lie on that ground. It is true to say, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove said in opening the Debate, that it lies only where there is an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the rent tribunal, and nobody with any knowledge of these matters or with a fair-minded approach to them could possibly construe that very limited right as a right of appeal. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General would not seek to do so.
The Committee has to ask itself in this connection this question: if this procedure is to continue, as appears to be likely, a good deal longer than was thought in 1946, then a time must come when the Committee will reach a decision as to whether it is right that there should be a right of going to the High Court on the question of jurisdiction only. In my view, there are many cases in which the right of appeal ought to lie, and, if it had existed, would have been exercised to the advantage of the parties and the doing of justice.
It is quite wrong to suppose that all the cases which come before rent tribunals

are small cases. Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley to the Park West case where there was a purported mass reference, which was bad in law, by a borough council of the whole of the flats in a particular block, numbering over 500, although the tenants themselves were perfectly satisfied with their rents. That was a remarkable case, made not the less remarkable by the fact that the tribunal in that case took into account, in coming to their decision, matters which had not been put before them by either side at the hearing. With very great respect to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, the court on that occasion took into account the violation of natural justice.

The Attorney-General: I was not dealing with that case.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman left that case to his right hon. and learned Friend, which was perhaps a prudent act, but——

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton—

Mr. Marlowe: For Hove.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for Hove—I apologise to Brighton—raised the question of the Brighton case and said that in that case there had been want of natural justice. I merely pointed out that the court had come to the opposite conclusion.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate that his observation was directed to the Brighton case; I think it is the Marine Rock case, or something like that. I quite appreciate that the Attorney-General's observations were directed to that case, but he also supplied his right hon. Friend with, what he will forgive me calling, his "favourite" quotation in regard to natural justice, which he has used with great effect in the House and in Standing Committee before. I merely wanted to say that in the other case to which reference has been made, the consideration that the tribunal had taken into account matters which had not been before it at its hearing, and with which the parties had consequently had no chance to deal, was held to be a violation of natural justice in accordance with the


principle in the House of Lords case, the Board of Education v. Rice. It is not quite right to say that the doctrine of natural justice is as flyblown as the Attorney-General would sometimes like to give the House to understand.
In my view, it is right that there should be an overhaul of the procedure of these tribunals, and that there should be a right of appeal. These two things, so far from detracting from the object of the Act, will do much to reinforce it. The object of the Act is not to reduce rents, but to get rents fairly assessed. I quite appreciate that in many cases the assessing of a fair rent has involved a reduction in the existing rent, and it would be remarkable if that were not so at a time of housing shortage, human nature being what it is. The object is to get a reasonable rent assessed as between the parties. In order that this should be done, it is necessary to have the best procedure that we can devise, and to try to leave the impression with both parties, and with the public generally, that these matters though dealt with as informally as possible, in the sense that the parties are not weighed down by difficulties of procedure and the like, nevertheless follow a reasonable pattern in accordance with judicial practice.
The emphasis tonight has been on the word "legal." I would prefer to put the emphasis on "judicial," which, after all, only means fair, open-minded and reasonable. These are the methods by which the procedure can be improved, and as it looks as if we shall have this Act for some years, I hope that consideration can be given to them to make the machinery of rent control better in this respect.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I desire to ask a few questions in regard to Scotland. I approach this matter with considerable timidity, because I am not learned in the law. However, this is a matter which greatly affects households in Scotland. I am referring to the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1946. The minor question I wish to ask, in connection with the renewal of this Act for a further year, is this: Since when has this law been valid, and for how long was the last renewal? I have tried to find

out the answer to this question and I have had the kind assistance of a learned gentleman. He thought the answer would cause no bother at all, but he found it extremely difficult to find. The amending Acts of 1946 and 1949 contained 382 and 18 Sections, respectively. It is thus a little difficult to unravel the problem.
The original Act was to expire at six months from the date when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, ceased to be in force. That Act was amended by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which was due to come to an end at 31st December. 1947. It is difficult to link that up with a date 31st March, 1951, when this Act will expire unless renewed, and if the Joint Under-Secretary of State can help us in the matter, it will be of great assistance.
The main point I want to deal with is the question of how far this Act covers Scotland. The Act differs from the English Act in that it is permissive. The Secretary of State "may" set up a tribunal
on representation by or after consultation with the council of any county or burgh.
I gather from the fact that the estimated expenditure involved is only £1,600 a year, compared with £135,000 in the case of England and Wales, that the rent tribunals are operating on a very small scale in Scotland, in spite of the fact that conditions are very similar in Scotland, where we have tenants in occupation of houses rent restricted or subsidised who, in turn, are letting part of their houses furnished at very high rents.
There is undoubtedly a case for setting up some machinery for review, and I wish to ask the Joint Under-Secretary what representations, if any, she has had recently for the necessity of such tribunals, and in what areas they are to be found. Also, is it intended to introduce something which will be permanent in character, and, if so, would it be universal, or shall we simply go on from year to year until the need for this Act has gone?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): Section 10 of the original Act of 1943 made provision for the continuance in force of the Act until six month,' from the date when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, ceased to be in force. Section 2 of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, continued that until 31st


December, 1947. Since 1947, the Act has been continued by the same method that we are now seeking to adopt.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Can the hon. Lady explain why it is to be continued for 15 months, instead of 12 months as in the other cases?

Miss Herbison: I want to make perfectly sure of that point. Some of these Acts are being continued from December to December, and others from March to March. It all depends on when the original Act came into operation, and this Act is dated from December to December.
The hon. Member suggested that because the amount of money being spent in Scotland on these tribunals is so small, in comparison with the amount being spent in England and Wales, we are not having sufficient tribunals in Scotland. I would point out that there are other reasons for the money for Scotland being smaller in proportion to the amount for England. We have had this provision since 1943, whereas the provision in the case of England and Wales dates only from 1946. Because of that, we find there are not so many cases coming forward in Scotland as there were when this came into force in 1943. That is one important reason why the amount of money that is being spent is now in proportion much smaller than in England and Wales.
Wherever it has been proved that there has been need for a tribunal to deal with these rents in Scotland, that tribunal has been set up. I have no information at all to suggest that anywhere in Scotland any individual is prevented from placing his case before a tribunal and having it considered. If the hon. Member has any information which he can give me on that, then I am certain my right hon. Friend will be only too willing to see that steps are taken to give the benefits of this Act to everyone in Scotland who needs it.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

TEACHING PROFESSION (COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

8.22 p.m.

Major Raton Beamish: Hon. Members are fortunate these days to draw an Adjournment debate, but I have been doubly fortunate in that having selected a subject with wide public interest, the Adjournment Motion has come considerably earlier than might otherwise have been the case. I am sorry that the Minister of Education himself is unlikely to reply to this Debate. I wrote to him expressing the strong hope that he would reply personally, but apparently he does not feel able to do so. In his place we have the Parliamentary Secretary, and if I may I will call him my hon. Friend, because he is a constituent of mine. After I have finished speaking this evening, he may even decide to vote for me next time.
Since 1945 I have specialised to a considerable extent in learning all that I could about Communist activities, methods and aims at home and abroad. Communist activity within the State teaching profession is one aspect of their work in which I have particularly interested myself. I am going to try to present what evidence I have been able to collect to the House, so that hon. Members may form their own opinion. I shall do my best to avoid any unnecessary party controversy.
I have raised this question of Communist teachers on a number of previous occasions, although the replies that I have had from the Minister of Education have been, in my opinion, thoroughly unsatisfactory. It was on 20th July that I gave notice that I would, if fortunate in the ballot, raise this matter on the Adjournment. From my very heavy mailbag since I have asked these Questions and drawn attention to these matters, it has been clear to me that it is worth while going on with the work that I am doing. Some of the letters I have had from school teachers all over the country have been of the utmost interest, and a number of them significantly have been anonymous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What is the matter with hon Members opposite? The reason I mention that, is because I think it is a most unhealthy sign


that schoolmasters and school mistresses should be afraid of giving their names to a Member of Parliament in case they might be mentioned in public. At the back of their minds is the possibility of victimisation in future years. [Interruption.] Do not let us get too worked up so early. I am not saying anything controversial. I am stating facts, and if hon. Members give me a fair chance. I will present my case.
During the past two years or so the Prime Minister, in contrast to some of his colleagues, has condemned Communism in the most outspoken fashion. In the Labour Party Annual Report for 1949, we find this:
Genuine peace-lovers everywhere have a clear duty to isolate the Communist advocates of Soviet Russia's dangerous imperialist policy.
A little earlier the Prime Minister stated in this House,
The Government have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only prudent course to adopt is to ensure that no one who is known to he a member of the Communist Party, or to he associated with it in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about his or her reliability, is employed in connection with work, the nature of which is vital to the security of the State. The same rule will govern the employment of those who are known to be actively associated with Fascist organisations.
As a result of this, a considerable number of senior civil servants and others with Communist sympathies—with the exception of one Fascist, or a person suspected of being a Fascist—have been removed to other positions. That statement by the Prime Minister showed at any rate what was the Government's attitude to Communists being employed in positions of trust.
I suggest that it is dangerous and foolish to be mealymouthed about the real meaning of Communism.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule—unrestricted by law and based on force—of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie,
said Stalin. I quote from the last page of the Communist Manifesto. I assume it is an accurate edition, because it was printed by Transport House as a centenary edition. The last paragraph says:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be obtained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions

We have already seen such a policy put into effect since the end of the war in 11 countries in Europe which have a total population of 133 million. I have studied in utmost detail the moves by which Communists penetrate into the teaching profession, thereby preparing the ground and carrying out what some people call a softening-up process. I have studied this matter sufficiently to be able to write a book, which may be mediocre but is the best effort I could make. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear. It is a very good book."] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) say "Hear, hear," as he was foolish enough to publish it. In that book, which I am not necessarily recommending to anybody—

Mr. Cove: Has the hon. and gallant Member made any profit on it?

Major Beamish: —I have devoted one whole chapter to education in the Marxist State. As I have plenty of time, I will give one other quotation from Stalin because it has special reference to this question of the education of young people. I think it is from "The Problems of Leninism," although I forget exactly which book it is. He wrote these words:
What do we mean when we speak of educating young folk in the spirit of Leninism? … Doing our utmost to strengthen their conviction that our workers' State is the offspring of the international proletariat; that is the basis whence the Revolution in all countries will develop; that the final victory of our Revolution is the concern of the international proletariat.
So much for those quotations, which may be a suitable introduction to what I have to say.
The Bishop of Chichester, for whom I am sure the Minister of Education shares my very deep respect, preached a sermon on Easter Day this year at the annual conference of the National Union of Teachers. He expressed the view of the Church on these matters, and in the course of that sermon he used these words:
The Communist Manifesto openly declares that Communists' ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
I have just given the quotation from the Communist Manifesto.
Atheism—I quote Lenin—is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and the practice of scientific Socialism. It is not


surprising that, with this view, the Communists should seek the total control of the minds of the young and the domination of the whole machinery of education so as to free it from all non-Marxist influences.
That is the view of the Bishop of Chichester, given in his sermon on Easter Day this year.
Those brief quotations, which I could multiply a hundredfold, show that to accuse all Communist teachers in this country of subversive activities and gross disloyalty to the democracy which employs them, is not an attack upon the professional integrity of those teachers. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is it?"] Rather would it be an insult to them to suggest that they ever lost any opportunity of teaching their creed of bloody revolution, class hatred and atheism. Every Communist would be the first indignantly to deny that he ever did so, because that is part of the Communists' stock-in-trade. One of the first principles of any Communist or Marxist is that the end justifies the means. For the Communist there is no distinction between truth and falsehood.

Mr. James Hudson: A lot of Tories believe that also.

Major Beamish: I will willingly deal with sensible interruptions. In a letter to the Minister, I have asked him direct questions. He kindly and courteously acknowledged my letter, in which I set out some half-dozen questions, which I propose to put to him today because I many get more vauable replies.
The first question is: How many Communist teachers are there known to be in State schools? The Communist Party claim that there are more than 2,000. That claim was made some 18 months ago—I speak from memory—at a Communist conference in Liverpool. It was made by Mr. Giles, an old Etonian who has been a member of the Communist Party for 22 years. Can the Minister confirm that figure? Does he realise that if he is not able to give the House any figure at all, it is quite reasonable to say that his attitude to the question is complacent and that he has not given it sufficient investigation? My own view, for what it is worth, is that the figure of 2,000 given by Mr. Giles is likely to be a considerable underestimate. The Communists are never in the habit of disclosing their order of battle.
Communist teachers—this is an important part of what I want to say—do their work in a variety of ways. They are carefully placed in key positions by the education committee of their party which is set up for that very purpose, acting, of course, on the instructions of their own politbureau," which is all-powerful—far more powerful, incidentally, than their executive committee, which is only a shadow organisation. The first job of Communist teachers, in my view, is to lose no time in influencing their fellow teachers, and any school master or school mistress who happens to be working in a school alongside Communists will be the first to tell us that that is so. Many Communists were carefully placed in the emergency training colleges, which are now. I am glad to say, in process of being wound up.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Communists are carefully placed. In my experience of education administration in this country, it is usually the governing body of the school or the education authority which places its teachers. Could he tell us how it is possible for the Communists to place the teachers anywhere?

Major Beamish: I should have thought that it is fairly obvious how it would be possible and, indeed, easy at the end of the war when there was a grave shortage of teachers for Communists to get into the emergency training colleges, provided that they had the ability. There is a good deal of evidence on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), who is the leader of my party in the L.C.C., has already given some of it to the Minister of Education——

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): No, not evidence only statements.

Major Beamish: Not evidence? Never mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no proof at all."] It is no good hon. Members just laughing at what I am saying. I am telling them—this is supported by a very large number of people—that the emergency training colleges have produced a considerable number of Communist teachers who are now in our schools. I am simply stating that——

Mr. Cove: Mr. Cove (Aberavon) rose

Major Beamish: I wish to make my speech in my own way. I will not give way.

Mr. Cove: Mr. Cove rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) does not give way, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) must resume his seat.

Mr. Cove: Why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman substantiate what he is saying?

Major Beamish: It is the easiest thing in the world to give a twist to everything one teaches and to select one's material so as to influence young minds. Those Communist teachers are not fools, and they are where they are for a purpose. It so happens that last Sunday in a calendar which my family has produced for many years—there is a quotation for each day—I noticed these words by Florence Nightingale:
Give me the schools of a country and I care not who makes its laws.
I commend that most seriously to the Minister of Education. [Laughter.] Why hon. Members opposite should find this funny is something which I hope one of them will explain when he comes to speak.

Mr. William Ross: We do not consider it funny. Many of us on this side of the House are teachers with a high regard for our profession, and we think it ridiculous that an hon. and gallant Gentleman on that side should get up and make such blatant accusations with no attempt to prove one of them.

Major Beamish: If the hon. Gentleman will give me half a chance and listen to my speech, he will have as much evidence as I have been able to collect.

Mr. Ross: We have not had any yet.

Major Beamish: The hon. Member must wait for it Furthermore, if he has any evidence to refute what I have been saying, If have no doubt that the House will be extremely interested to hear what he has to say. This is a debate, and I am expressing my own personal view, and I do not see why that should get under the skin of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the extent that it seems to have done. I am

expressing not a party view but something which is very much in the minds of all parents in the country, for they are deeply anxious about the present situation. Can the Minister when he replies tell us anything about the organisation called the Woodland Folk? [Laughter.] This is funny, too, is it?

Mr. Daines: No, you do not understand.

Major Beamish: Exactly, you do not understand. Can the Minister tell us about the Woodland Folk?

Mr. J. Hudson: Yes.

Major Beamish: You are not the Minister.

Air Commodore Harvey: You never will be.

Mr. George Wigg: And the same to you.

Major Beamish: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Gentleman is saying "And the same to you" to you, Sir. The leader of the organisation called the Woodland Folk is known as Koodoo. I wonder whether the Minister has read their "Woodcraft Folk Song Book," which contains a great deal of Communist propaganda. I can give a lot of information about this organisation to the Minister if it is of interest to him. It is worthy of investigation.
Numerous publications are available to brief Communist school teachers and, incidentally, others who may not be aware that they are lapping up Communist propaganda, so well is it often presented. I will give some examples. I have drawn attention to this on several occasions recently in this House, but all I have been given by the Minister is a flea in my ear. I sent him recently a copy of the "New Central European Observer," a weekly foreign affairs publication subsidised by the Czech Embassy, in spite of the fact that the Czechoslovak Government will not allow us to publish anything in that country. It has two Communist editors and contains nothing but straightforward Communist propaganda. When I pointed out in my letter that this had been circulated to school masters and school mistresses all over the country, asking them to take it for their current affairs lectures, the Minister replied:


I really do not think there is much danger that any teacher would be tempted to make use of this particular material for teaching purposes.
Why not? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Why take it in if they are not going to use it in their current affairs lectures? I do not understand—[An HON. MEMBER: "Of course you do not"] Of course it is used.

Mr. Daines: Where?

Mr. Harold Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman——

Major Beamish: No, I will not give way, I want to make my speech in my own way. I have already taken five minutes more than I had intended to take on this part of it.

Mr. Harold Davies: We shall all get it.

Brigadier Clarke: We do not get it.

Mr. Davies: Hon. Members opposite get it.

Major Beamish: Another example is the "Bureau of Current Affairs," a biased, Left-wing organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes. It was the successor of A.B.C.A. which did so much to get the party opposite into power. I know all about the A.B.C.A. During the war I did not allow anyone in my company to read some of their literature. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!] I really had hoped to be allowed to make a serious speech without such facetious interruptions, and I am sorry it should be a cause for hilarity.

Mr. J. Hudson: We cannot help it.

Major Beamish: I am glad to say that, after frequent attacks from this side of the House from myself and my colleagues, the publications of the "Bureau of Current Affairs" are no longer used in any of the three Services unless they are "vetted" by a committee set up for that purpose. I have some examples of their pamphlets in my hand. I challenge anyone to say that "Western Germany Today," written by Basil Davidson, is anything but biased, inaccurate and partisan. I was very glad, when I asked all three Service Ministers what use was made of it in the Services, to learn that it was not being used at all.
Another pamphlet, which is equally biased and partisan, is called "Human Rights," by Mr. G. T. Hankin. I have checked up on these things and have read them. Are we really to be told that it is more important to protect grown-up soldiers against partisan and biased publications than it is to protect children in our schools? Everybody knows that the Bureau of Current Affairs is one of the main sources by which teachers of our schools brief themselves for their current affairs lectures.

An Hon. Member: Nonsense.

Mr. Hudson: The only evidence which the hon. and gallant Member has is of the contents of the papers which he is holding.

Major Beamish: The Bureau of Current Affairs—listen to the name, "Current Affairs Lectures"; have hon. Members ever heard of them?

Mr. Hudson: Yes. Tell us how terrible they are.

Major Beamish: Frequent use is made of the Education Section of the Society for Cultural Relations with the U.S.S.R., of which a well-known Communist, Mrs. Beatrice King, is the chairman and on which are represented a large number of teachers' organisations all over the United Kingdom, including, until December, 1949, the National Union of Teachers itself. In order not to speak too long, I will not give hon. Members more details, but they can easily look this up for themselves. These publications produced by the S.C.R., as it is called, are undoubtedly widely used by teachers in their current affairs lectures.

Group Captain Wilcock: Name one school.

Major Beamish: Name, rather, one school where it is not used. There are numerous books in use provided by an organisation called Central Books, a notorious Left-wing bookshop; I have a number of pro-Communist books with me. Then there is the Educational Bulletin issued by the Education Advisory Committee of the Communist Party, and the International Bulletin of Education, published quarterly by the World Federation of Trade Unions (Teachers' Section), and which is handled, incidentally, by Central Books. There are many other sources of Communist propaganda, quite a number of which come directly from


the Soviet Union and from other Communist—dominated countries, and many of these find their way into the hands of teachers.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East) rose——

Major Beamish: I am not giving way any more. I want to make my speech in my own way. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member usually takes a balanced view, I will give way to him.

Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to follow the hon. and gallant Member. Is he suggesting that no teacher should ever be allowed to see or to read any of these periodicals?

Major Beamish: I have not heard myself making any such suggestion.

Mr. Dailies: Then what is the hon. and gallant Member saying?

Major Beamish: If hon. Members who interrupt like that would do me the courtesy of listening, they would hear what suggestions I am making. The point is this. The man to make suggestions is the Minister of Education. He is in charge of these things, and it is for him to do something to still the anxiety of British parents. I have in my hand a pamphlet called "Russia Today," published by the British-Soviet Friendship Society. I have an idea that that is one of the proscribed organisations of the Labour Party.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Proscribed by the Labour Party.

Major Beamish: Yes, proscribed by the Labour Party. In other words, it is wrong for a member of the Labour Party to belong to it; it may result in his being sacked, as I believe it has done in some cases yet it is quite all right for teachers to use this document with which to teach his children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us the evidence of that."] This particular copy was sent to a schoolmaster. It is addressed on the back, under the cover of a penny stamp, to "Schoolmaster, Llangarron, Ross-on-Wye, Hereford." It went through the post addressed like that, and thousands of others have been sent out similarly addressed to schools all over the country.

Mrs. Middleton: Have they used it?

Major Beamish: I ask the Minister to deny that if he can. There is another document sent out at the same time to the same schoolmaster. This is called "I Saw the Truth in Korea," written by Mr. Alan Winnington, the "Daily Worker" correspondent with the North Koreans. I can only describe it as a treasonous document. It has none the less been sent to a large number of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses and I have no doubt that those with extreme Left-wing leanings are using it—

Mr. Cove: Why not prove it?

Major Beamish: I will give some evidence now. One textbook to which I have previously called attention is called, "Life in the U.S.S.R." This was first written in 1943 and originally Sir Bernard Pares was commissioned to write it, but, by a fluke, because he was unable to take it on, it was written by Mrs. Beatrice King. It was reprinted in 1944, 1945 and 1948, and is pure Communist propaganda. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shocking."] Yes, it is shocking. Some 25,000 copies have been sold and are in circulation and still on the travellers' lists of the publisher, although I feel bound to admit its sale has been decreasing.

Mr. Harold Davies: In 1943 they had Russian flags in schools, as the Russians were our allies.

Major Beamish: I am not saying that that was not the case, but that this document is Communist propaganda and anyone who reads it must agree with me. The Minister went a large part of the way to agree when I drew attention to it. I do not mind particularly what happened in 1943, but this is in use in schools—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which school?"] 25,000 copies have been sold already—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] It is a school textbook—[An HON. MEMBER: "What education authority bought it?"] Education authorities do not buy school textbooks; school textbooks are usually bought by the school, I believe, and the books they have bought are checked by the authority concerned.

Mr. Messer: That is quite wrong.

Major Beamish: That is what happens in East Sussex; I do not know what happens elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER:


"There is a Tory council there."] This is under an overall Communist direction. If the Minister would like to have more details from me, and if he does not know about these things—although I hope he does—I will willingly give them. If he does not know exactly how the Communist Party organises matters, I have a number of details here. For example, I have the New Year letter issued on 11th January, 1949, by the London District Committee of the Communist Party starting with the words, "Dear comrade," instructing all Communist school teachers exactly how they should behave and what to do and signed by John Mahon, G. C. T. Giles, J. T. Jones, M. D. Clarke, D. Capper and E. Godfrey. If that is not evidence, I do not know what is.
To take one example—and this is the worst I know—there is one school, not very far from here, Acton County School, where 16 teachers admit that they are members of the Communist Party. Sixteen teachers in one school. Admittedly it is the worst case I know. The headmaster is Mr. Giles, who has high academic qualifications. Not long ago that school sent a telegram of congratulation to Communists who were striking against the legally elected French Government. Sixteen Communists in one school—is that evidence? Now laugh. When this occurred a Conservative motion was moved on the local council asking for an inquiry to investigate the reason why the school's name was used in the telegram and it was defeated by the Socialists on the Council led, I believe, by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) who, incidentally, unsuccessfully attempted to exclude the Press from the debate which took place.
I wonder if the Minister knows about a club called the Voronezh Club, run by a well-known Communist? It is well worth investigating. The school is known locally, not as the Acton County School but as the Acton Communist School.

Mr. Messer: When the hon. and gallant Member referred to the hon. Member for Acton, he was referring to the wrong Member. He meant the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter).

Major Beamish: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that correction. I made a mistake.

Mr. Pannell: Did the hon. and gallant Member give my hon. Friend the Member for Southall notice that he intended to raise this matter?

Major Beamish: I am not making any attack on him. This has been common knowledge for several years. It is surely unnecessary to give notice that one intends to mention a fact which has been in newspapers throughout the country. It is a statement of fact, and the hon. Member for Southall would be the first to agree with it.
The lines on which some local authorities are thinking was shown on 26th October, when the Middlesex County Council, by 54 votes to 29, defeated a Socialist motion to refer back to the Education Committee their recommendation that persons known to be members of the Communist or Fascist Parties, or to be associated with them, should be debarred from certain key teaching posts under the control of the council. I should like the Minister to tell me what is his view of that action which has been taken by the Middlesex County Council.
Hon. Members will have seen publicity given recently to the collection of signatures by schoolchildren for the Moscow-run so-called peace appeal, which is holding a Congress in a few days' time in Sheffield. Exactly what the details were, I do not know. A small girl made in Trafalgar Square a speech which had undoubtedly been written for her by some Communist who had inspired it.
What worries me seriously is the complacency of the Minister about this problem. As recently as 19th October, he said:
There is no cause for anxiety over activities in and about London County Council schools …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th Oct., 1950; Vol. 478, c. 276.]
He was answering a Question about Communist propaganda in State schools. Why did the right hon. Gentleman avoid any reference to the most important speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead when he replied to the Debate on 17th July? My hon. Friend asked several important questions which the Minister studiously avoided answering. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies tonight, he will prove my view of the Minister to be wrong. I should have thought that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's own personal and


confidential secretary, Miss Anne George, was one of the Communists removed from her position 18 months ago on the Prime Minister's instructions would have brought home to him the danger of having a disloyal person in a position of trust in the State.
I sum up by saying that on present evidence, so far as I can obtain it, and in the present circumstances. I am not in favour of banning the Communist Party. Incidentally, unlike Mr. Deakin, I never have been in favour of that, my main reason being that I have no idea how anybody can tell who is or who is not a Communist, or at any rate how anybody can tell where the dividing line comes. It was Mr. Bramall, who lost his seat at the last election, who asked the Prime Minister that very question when the Prime Minister made the statement to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. The Prime Minister said he did not think there was any difficulty, but it may have been because in the circumstances he had to use those words.
I believe that Communism will die a natural death if its aims and true nature are ruthlessly exposed. Is there any reason why we should be any less shocked by the activities of large numbers of avowed fifth columnists, which is what the Communists are, pouring revolutionary, seditious and atheistic propaganda into British children's ears in British schools, than we should have been had a similar number of Fascists been doing the same thing before 1939? To me, the two are comparable and equally shocking. I hope they are to the Minister.
The absurdity of the present situation seems to be underlined by something which has occurred to me—that apparently we cannot trust a clergyman to teach our children in a State school but we can trust a Communist. That bears thinking about.
I am convinced that the huge majority of parents throughout this country will agree with every word that I have said today. For five years terrible harm has been done to children by the methods which I have described. I submit to the Minister that he has a great responsibility to investigate the charges that I have made and to report with no delay to this House the result of his investigation, and, furthermore, to take the necessary action to ensure that, in fture, British

children are taught the British way of life, loyalty to the Crown, loyalty to the Constitution and godliness, by British teachers who can be trusted.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has made a number of sweeping, but very vague accusations against the professional integrity of teachers in this country, but he has not adduced a single specific instance in support of the accusations he has made. He says that insidious, revolutionary propaganda is being poured into the ears of the children in the schools of this country. Can he name a single teacher in this country, who has been found guilty of abusing his position of trust as a teacher by indulging in political propaganda inside the schools—either Communist political propaganda or Conservative political propaganda? I imagine that the hon. and gallant Member would say that it was just as unprofessional for a Conservative teacher to indulge in Conservative propaganda as for a Communist teacher to indulge in Communist propaganda.

Major Beamish: I quite agree.

Mr. Morley: One would imagine that the hon. and gallant Member would not have come to the House of Commons and made these grave, but vague accusations without being able to adduce one single example in support of the accusations he has made. In the course of his speech he said that this was very much in the minds of every parent in this country. Can the hon. and gallant Member give an example of a single parent in this country who has written to his local education authority and has said, "My child has been taught Communist propaganda by his teacher in the school?" Can he give a single example of that?

Mr. Odey: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me——

Mr. Morley: Can the hon. and gallant Member give me a single example of that?

Major Beamish: I have been challenged to give an example. I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the Sheffield peace Congress is about to take place, and the Chair-


man of that Congress, or the Chairman of the Executive Committee, claims that 500 million people in the world have signed the Peace pledge—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. Thousands and thousands, probably tens of thousands of those, I fancy, are children in our schools. There was a great deal of evidence in the newspapers about it recently. If that is not Communist influence of children, what is?

Mr. Morley: Really, the hon. and gallant Member should not insult the intelligence of hon. Members of this House by making statements of that kind.

Mr. Odey: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me——

Mr. Morley: No. Can the hon. and gallant Member give me a single instance of a child in any school who has been asked by his teacher to sign the peace petition? Can he give one single instance of that?

Major Beamish: If the hon. Member wants me to, I will give him afterwards a large sheaf of Press cuttings which provide a mass of evidence to that effect.

Mr. Morley: The hon. and gallant Member has made accusations in the House of Commons, and he ought to provide proof of those accusations in the House of Commons. He is unable to do so.

Major Beamish: These are the cuttings.

Mr. Morley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there are 2,000 Communist teachers in this country. I think he is quoting a statement made not long ago by Mr. Giles who is, we all admit, a Communist teacher. I am certainly not saying that there are no Communist teachers in this country, but there is no evidence that any Communist teacher has used his position as a teacher in order to inculcate Communist doctrine into the children. The statement that there are 2,000 Communist teachers was made to the Communist conference by Mr. Giles. I think that he very much exaggerated the number of teachers in this country who are members of the Communist Party.

Sir William Darling: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Morley: Mr. Giles made the statement that there are 2,000 Communist teachers in this country, to give the Communist conference the impression that he had a great deal more influence on teachers than he really has. Personally, I doubt if there are anything like 2,000 members of the Communist Party in the teaching profession here. At all events, even if there are 2,000 members of the party in the profession, that is less than 1 per cent. of the members of the profession in England and Wales.
The hon. and gallant Member said that Communist teachers influenced their colleagues in the staff rooms. I suppose that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not want to censor conversations in the schools. He would not want to prevent members of the staff of any school discussing political matters within the privacy of their own staff rooms. I am sure that he would allow teachers to discuss these matters in a friendly way inside their own staff rooms.
The hon. and gallant Member said that Communist teachers were very much influencing the political views of other teachers, but it is a fact that all the Communist candidates who were known to be Communist candidates who put up in recent years for election to the executive committee of the National Union of Teachers were defeated by considerable majorities. Obviously, their influence within the teaching profession does not extend very far. The hon. and gallant Member accused Communist teachers of influencing other teachers. He thought that they had no right even to influence their fellow teachers. I maintain that they have not any great influence upon their fellow teachers.

Mr. Odey: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Morley: Because I have been in the profession for over 40 years and I have occupied a responsible position in the chief union of the profession. I know what my professional colleagues are thinking and feeling, and what influence the Communists have over the great mass of the profession. If I guessed the political opinions of the majority of our teachers, I am afraid that I should have to confess that probably most of them are more friendly to the Conservative Party than they are to us. Although they are friends


of the Conservative Party, I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish them to indulge in propaganda on behalf of the party in their classrooms.
What are we to deduce from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech? I do not know if he wants the Minister to say that he will not permit members of the Communist Party to be teachers in our schools. Is he aiming at that?

Major Beamish: I made it clear what I was aiming at. I asked the Minister if he would give his views on the facts I had set before him and tell us what he proposes to do about the matter.

Mr. Morley: All I could deduce from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that he thought that no member of the Communist Party should be allowed to teach in a State school. In other words, the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to apply a political test to the teachers of this country. No other profession has a political test applied to it. The clergy have no political test, but there are people in the hierarchy of the Church of England who are not, perhaps, members of the Communist Party, but who are at least enthusiastic for that party's policy. There is no political test for the legal profession, and yet we have a leading member of the Bar in this country who is not a member of the Communist Party but is a great supporter of its policy. No political test is applied to the medical profession, but I know that there are members of that profession, and probably very successful practitioners, who are members of the Communist Party. Apparently, the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to apply the political test to the teaching profession alone.
I want to tell him that the majority of the teachers of this country, although bitterly opposed to Communism in every respect, will also be bitterly opposed to the imposition of a political test. If any teacher so far abuses his profession as to indulge in political propaganda with children on behalf of the party in which he believes, every teacher would say that he should be subjected to very severe disciplinary action. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite can bring to his local education committee any instance of a teacher indulging in political propaganda in the classroom and can prove what he

has stated, I am quite sure that the local education authority would take very severe disciplinary action against that teacher.
No teacher wants to see a position of trust abused by the use of political propaganda, but, on the other hand, the teachers would object to the imposition of a political test, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, will treat the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with the contempt which they deserve, through the lack of evidence which he has produced.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I certainly am not going to make any vague general charges against the teaching profession. I have far too high a respect for that profession, and in this House I choose my words with care. I am going to try to carry the whole House with me, because, in our hearts, all of us know that there is a latent problem here, and that, if things were to go wrong, it would not he merely the schools that would be corrupted, but the result would be that this Parliament itself would be swept away.
I am not going to exaggerate this danger. I am going to ask the House, for the time being, to put aside party differences and to join with me in asking the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to take cognisance of the situation that exists, to inform themselves as fully as they can about it, and then, in due course, to come to the House and say that, having examined the whole situation, they either think that matters can be left alone, or, alternatively, they consider that further action should be taken. It is the full appreciation of the facts in the Ministry that I am most desirous of securing.
Perhaps I have more knowledge of the London schools than many hon. Members of this House. I have been leader of one of the political parties in the greatest local education authority in the country for the last five years, and, consequently, when a girl named Geraldine Chalmers made a foolish speech at a peace gathering, the daily Press immediately got in touch with me and asked whether this was confirmation of widespread Communist infiltration into the schools.
I replied that so far as I knew, that particular case showed no evidence whatever of undue political influence by any member of the teaching staff of that school upon the girls. In that case, there certainly is or was a strong Communist group among the girls, but that had been created not by any wrongful behaviour on the part of the teaching staff, who, I think, were as concerned as anybody when they discovered the facts. The influence on those girls had come entirely from outside.
There are Communist forces in the country which are extremely anxious to get a hold on the minds of boys and girls in schools, but they are not just going to rely on the teaching profession and on what they can do through the teaching profession to achieve that end. On the contrary, I fancy that these forces are trying to work at the present time much more through these various apparently harmless bodies with the mendacious names which try and get the support of boys and girls. They know certain boys and girls who are already active members of the Young Communist League, and through them those other organisations, which conceal their Communist origin, manage to persuade a number of boys and girls to step in that direction.
We have got the National Student Peace Council, the International Youth Council, which publishes a magazine called "Youth for Peace" from 174, Uxbridge Road, and there is the World Federation of Democratic Youth which awarded what it calls its "Peace Badge" to a girl in my constituency. Then there is the British Peace Committee, about which we all know, which decided to initiate a Peace Week in this country starting, I thought not inappropriately, on Guy Fawkes Day.
As regards the London County Council, the Education Officer of the Council called together the secondary school headmasters and headmistresses in London in September to discuss with them measures to protect children in school against insidious propaganda of all kinds. I trust that hon. Members on all sides would agree that that was a perfectly proper action for him to take, and that it is most undesirable that teachers should not be fully aware of the kind of influence that may be exerted by ill-intentioned people.

I cannot stress too strongly the danger that exists if these peace bodies with the harmless sounding names are getting hold of boys and girls, and if the teachers themselves are not aware of the evil forces which are working through these so-called peace committees.
As to the London schools generally, it is public knowledge that there are a number of Communist teachers in the London schools. Frankly, I do not think that we are going to further this inquiry at all by arguing whether or not 2,000 is the correct number of Communist teachers in the whole country. It may be 2,000 plus x, or it may be 2,000 minus x. But it is common ground that there are a number of Communist teachers. I want to say with a full sense of responsibility, as leader of one of the parties of the London County Council, that in these last five years I have had no specific evidence of Communist indoctrination of children by teachers in London schools. I am not saying that there has been none. I say there is no evidence in my hands of such a character that I would think it right to take it to the education committee and say that action must be set on foot.
I trust that if such specific evidence was produced, the London County Council, under its present rulers, would take a serious view of the matter. But, having said there is no specific evidence, let me add that I have heard stories, and we have all heard stories, that are such as to cause anxiety. Anxiety exists, particularly regarding those schools where it is not just a matter of one individual member of the staff being known to be a Communist, but where a kind of Communist cell has been built up. We are all aware that these are the normal Communist tactics—to try to get a group of people thinking similarly and working in the same place.
The stories one hears are usually about history being taught with a twist. Frankly, any of us who know the Communist Party and the Communist method must feel some sense of concern when an avowed Communist is teaching history. At the last General Election my Communist opponent in Hampstead was a member of the teaching staff of a London secondary school. I say nothing whatever against his teaching in that school, because I have no evidence on that point. Whether he is likely to teach history in an unbiased way I must leave hon. Members


opposite to judge, for in his election address he told the electors of Hampstead that:
The five years of Labour rule have been a betrayal of Socialist policy.
and that:
The Communist Party is the only party fighting for peace and Socialism.
Can we all agree that a firm duty rests upon all parents or teachers or managers to report the fact instantly if they do receive evidence, even if it may be tenuous evidence, of something having been done wrong in a school? It is not going to be easy to get anything firm, concrete and definite in these matters; but we must watch any indications that a particular individual is misusing his position. Members of the teaching profession, themselves, must be as jealous as anybody on that point.
I hope I can carry the House with me also when I say that it is not only a matter of safeguarding the freedom of a teacher but also of safeguarding the parent the parent who has a duty to send his children to school, who may have no choice as to the school to which his child goes and who may be most deeply concerned if he should find enforced on him by our educational system that his children are being subjected to an influence which he profoundly deplores.

Mrs. Middleton: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) said just now that he had no evidence of any Communist indoctrination in any of the schools under the London local authority. He also mentioned Communist cells within the staffs of schools. Has he any evidence to show that such cells have been established in any London schools?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, I certainly have that.

Mrs. Middleton: Will the hon. Member give it?

Mr. Brooke: I am not going to throw the names of schools about in this House, because I do not think it does the schools any good. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), a few minutes ago asked my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) whether he could give any evidence of teachers trying to get children to sign the peace petition. Let me say that there has been evidence of that kind in London, as the Minister himself is aware. I know that the teachers who were

at fault were firmly dealt with. I hope I shall not be asked to mention the names of those schools, because I think that schools where that kind of thing has happened have probably received too much publicity already.
May I, in conclusion, turn to this question of Communist influence in the training colleges? I may or may not be right, but in my own mind I draw a definite distinction between the presence of a Communist on the teaching staff of a school and the presence of a Communist specifically chosen to train young men and women to become teachers. The latter seems to me to be a point of far greater danger than the former. My view is that at the present time the directive from Communist headquarters is that members of teaching staffs should take the greatest care not to put a foot wrong in the classroom, but that they should, at the same time, do all they can to bring other teachers round to their way of thinking, and I fancy that those tactics have been applied in the training colleges.
In July I made a statement in this House which was a perfectly true statement. The Minister has said that I have produced no evidence. It was not for me to produce evidence. I stated a fact and gave him a number of names, some of which I think must have been well known to him already, as corroboration of my assertion that a number of Communists had managed to get themselves appointed to key posts in emergency teaching training colleges after the war. I was not speaking of the permanent training colleges. In addition to that, a number of Communists undoubtedly managed to get themselves selected as students in the training colleges and all that, I believe, was a well thought-out plot to infiltrate into the profession.

Mr. Tomlinson: Again I would say that I am still waiting for the evidence to back up the assertion which was made. I have waited in vain up to now.

Mr. Brooke: I was about to deal with a letter which the Minister was good enough to write to me. After that speech which I made in the House I, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes, came in for a great deal of correspondence, and it was interesting to note how, in these letters, the lines all crossed on certain particular training colleges—and in most cases they were the same training colleges which I had had in mind when I


spoke in the House. May I read this letter to the House:
I have read the Report of your speech in the House of Commons last night and decided to write to you about such-and-such a training college which I have just left. Several of the students there last year were Communist Party members and had the nerve to get up and say so. They did not believe that the majority of the people had the ability or time to study the facts of a situation and then form a judgment. They therefore thought that important decisions should not be made democratically. These are dangerous people to let into our education system, and yet these are some of the people who will be in charge of classes in September.
That is all I want to say on that point—
These are dangerous people to let into our education system.

Mr. Cove: Mr. Cove rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is reading a letter. Surely he can read it to the end without interruption.

Mr. Brooke: May I now turn to the point about which I was speaking to the Minister? What I said in the House was:
There are men and women coming out of training colleges who have passed under Communist influence, because the Communists were quite skilful enough to see that some of their numbers were appointed to key posts in emergency training colleges when the war was over.
Later on, I added:
Will the Minister make his own investigations and come back to the House after the Recess and give us a firm assurance that no member of the Communist Party, no one who is spreading the Communist doctrine, holds any post in any teachers' training college?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July 1950; Vol. 477, c. 1893–5.]
In substantiation of the first statement, I sent the right hon. Gentleman a number of names. I am not sure what further evidence he desired me to submit, because the emergency training colleges in question were closed at that time, for the most part, and unless his Inspectors had not been doing their work, he could not have been ignorant about some of the individuals I mentioned.

Mr. Tomlinson: I was waiting, and I am still waiting, for evidence of the exercise of Communist influence in training colleges.

Mr. Brooke: I think that the Inspectors may be able to get that evidence if the Minister asks for it. This is really the one point on which I am at issue with

the Minister. He wrote me a letter, which I am sure he will not object to being read to the House, because it is obviously a statement of policy.

Mr. Tomlinson: Mr. Tomlinson indicated assent.

Mr. Brooke: The letter states:
Unless and until Parliament decides that no member of the Communist Party should be employed in a teaching post or in teaching posts of certain kinds, I do not agree that it is my responsibility to assure the House that no member of that party holds any post in any teachers' training college.
The difference between this side and the other may be that we consider that in times like this the Minister of Education has a responsibility to give the House an assurance that people who hold Communist views are not selected for training men and women for the teaching profession. That is an assurance which I still hope he will give us. He has his own sources of information through the inspectorate and elsewhere, and if he will give us the promise that he has informed himself as fully as he can about the state of the teachers' training colleges, then I, for one, will be satisfied.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) has spoken from his great experience and knowledge of the London County Council. With the exception of his last few remarks, I think he will find that there is general acceptance of his views on this side of the House. His speech was in complete contrast to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish). The hon. and gallant Member made wild, sweeping and almost hysterical accusations without a scrap of evidence to support them. Where we disagree with the hon. Member for Hampstead is where he made allegations about the teachers' training colleges which he could not substantiate.
The point we have to bear in mind, when it is said that the Communists' policy is to infiltrate and get themselves appointed to key positions, is who are on the appointing boards. As regards the teachers' training colleges, it is the Minister of Education and the local authorities who make the appointments. We could hardly accuse them of being Communist-dominated. Most of the school appointments are made by boards of governors,


and even if there was one Communist on a board, he would find himself in a very small minority.
It is essential that we get a sense of proportion on this issue. The hon. and gallant Member opened up a wide and dangerous field into which we can be led if we institute a witch hunt against members of the teaching profession. It may be Communists today, Socialists tomorrow and Conservatives the next day, and then religion. Before we know where we are the whole educational system will have foundered. So I ask the House to keep a sense of proportion on this matter, because if we yield to any vague allegations and accusations of the hon. and gallant Member, very soon the whole of our educational life will be threatened.
The hon. and gallant Member made very great play with what he called Communist teachers. I make a very strong and clear distinction between teachers who are Communists and Communist teachers. There may be some examples here and there of Communist teachers who are deliberately trying to teach Communism to the children. If they are caught trying to do that, they deserve all the discipline that the education authority can bring on them.

Mr. Pannell: And the sack.

Mr. Chetwynd: It may not lead to the sack the first time. If there are Communist teachers and their Communism does not intrude into their teaching activity, it would be intolerable of this House to try to injure them in their employment. That is the real danger, and the hon. Member for Hampstead revealed this in the letters which he received. Once a man is labelled a Communist or a near Communist, then all his potential enemies will start a vendetta and try to make accusations against him to cause his dismissal. That is a very dangerous trend in our political and educational life, because the man who is accused has no means of ever catching up with the allegations that are made. It may be they come through personal disagreement, or because someone does not like the colour of his hair, or because at some time he may have been known to have expressed a progressive Left-wing view and immediately he is labelled a Communist.

Today, in some quarters, such dangers are cropping up that it is almost impossible for certain people to make progressive statements at all. I believe that any discrimination on political grounds against teachers, providing they are not actually using their profession to propagate their political views, is intolerable, whether it is a Conservative preaching Conservativism, a Socialist preaching Socialism or a Communist preaching Communism. That should be ruled out, and anyone guilty of an offence of that sort ought to be dealt with sternly.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member will agree that if a teacher teaches Socialism, Conservativism or Liberalism it is not dangerous to the same degree as Communism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No, it is not, for Communism starts out to destroy our constitution.

Mr. Chetwynd: A teacher is appointed for educational purposes and this is his qualification, and if he starts introducing politics of any kind he is not being a teacher. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), as my commanding officer in the war, calling his instructors together and giving us an example by saying, "You must not put your fingers into the scale of education and try to weigh them down one way or another." That is perfectly true in the teaching profession today, and anyone guilty of doing it should be very sternly treated.
We have got to rely upon the commonsense and the judgment of the teachers. They have their own professional codes of conduct which they formulate, and anyone guilty of a breach of that code of conduct is guilty of a breach against the whole teaching profession and deserves the contempt of other teachers. The right means of dealing with this is not to penalise a man because he happens to be a Communist, but to penalise him if he teaches Communism, which is quite a different matter. It is wrong to condemn a man or a woman because of his political views.
I want to deal more with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes because it was quite revealing. He said that in the war he did not allow his men to read the A.B.C.A. pamphlets. It was that frame of mind that created more Communists than any other attitude. The people who wrote those pamphlets tried


to get across what the British aim and purpose was, and that is why we had a strong morale. The reactionary commanding officers were responsible for much of the ill-feeling that arose.

Major Beamish: Since the hon. Member has done me the honour of describing me as ridiculous—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, reactionary"]—perhaps I can explain. I was busy fighting during the war—the emphasis is on "fighting"—and I did not allow my men to use the A.B.C.A. pamphlets because, in my view, they contained party political propaganda.

Mr. Chetwynd: The hon. and gallant Member was setting up his own personal prejudices as a guide and anything which savoured at all of being reasonable was insidious propaganda, so far as he was concerned.
I do not want to carry on any longer. I think I have made my position clear. My hon. Friends and myself are taking it upon ourselves to defend the Communists in this case, but it does not mean that our action should be interpreted as support for Communism. Far from it. We believe that the one safeguard and barrier against the spreading of Communism in this country is not to take action such as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes, but to make sure that we have a real, healthy Social Democratic party. The teachers themselves are aware of the position now. Anyone who wilfully uses his position to spread Communism in the schools knows what he is asking for, and in due course will receive it.

9.43 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but my purpose is to ask for one or two assurances from the Minister of Education. We all have a great respect for the education authorities and for the teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) has stated that the Communists are about one per cent. of the teachers. It might be worse, but even one per cent. is dangerous. We are in very difficult and grave times. There are four types of war going on in Asia today, and Europe is in unheaval with very difficult problems. The House is quite right to discuss this matter and to clear the air on behalf both of teachers and of parents. The House

is quite right to make certain that Communism is not being taught to our children. All of us who are fathers are concerned in this matter, which affects not only council schools but even private and public schools. I believe that Communism exists there to some degree also. I had a debate about 18 months ago. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will recall it, because he was there. It was at a school, and one of the masters who spoke at that very famous public school was far nearer to Communism than to Socialism. I think the Minister will agree with me.
We want an assurance from the Minister of Education. We obviously cannot ban all Communists from the teaching profession. I do not think that it can be done or even considered in that way. We want an assurance that men who belong to the Communist Party or have strong Communist views are not appointed to headships. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] If we are to do that, we shall lead ourselves into trouble, not immediately, as we do with the scientists, but in five, six or eight years' time. That is when the trouble will take place, and we shall suffer for it. If we screen our scientists and have a very careful check in the fighting Services, then the Government are entitled to take some cognisance of school teachers.

Mr. George Thomas: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that his argument would mean that teachers who were Communists could just keep quiet about it and remain secret members if they wished for promotion?

Air Commodore Harvey: We know that the Communists are very patient and prepared to wait a long time, but I am happy to leave that in the hands of the Minister. If a man is to be made a head master, enough is known about him over a period of years to determine what his real political views are. My concern is that the Communist Party is making a dead set at the youth of this country. [Interruption.] I hold it against them. That may be said by hon. Members about the point which I tried to make as to whether they were Tories, Socialists or Liberals. We may have different political views but we all agree that there is only one way to govern this country, through the House of Commons; but that is not


so in the case of the Communist Party. We must make clear where we differ.

Mr. Pannell: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the argument which he is putting forward now was advanced by Conservative local education authorities even about the Socialists only a few years ago?

Air Commodore Harvey: I was not involved in politics to a great extent before the war and I am more concerned with what is going on now with Communism. It is a danger and we should recognise it. I am not "getting at" hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are in the teaching profession. It is right that they should be loyal to their profession and state their case. I do not argue against that at all, but it is known that the Communists are organising camps, and hiking and cycling tours for young people. It is all done in a subtle way. I am asking the Minister to recognise this and to watch it very closely through his inspectors and staff, and I want him to give us that assurance. I do not know what the real figure is. I do not know whether the Minister knows if it is 2,000. I should not think he does. If it is 2,000, it is a very high figure, and so is the number of children who will pass through their hands over a period of years.
Communists are out to destroy all representative Government, and I want to be assured by the Minister that he will do everything in his power to keep himself well informed about this in the midst of all his other duties, and see that in the teaching profession Communism is kept at as low a level as possible. If we can have that assurance I shall be satisfied.

9.48 p.m.

Dr. King: I want to tackle this question from another point of view. It is ironic—I hope not significant—that within a few days the other House should have been discussing the freedom of the British citizen and the interference with that freedom by the Chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation in banning a play—in my opinion, an action against British freedom—and in this House we should, on the one hand, have a request for an alliance and friendship with Fascist Franco—I quote the words "alliance and friendship" from the recent Debate—and that, on the other, we should this evening

be almost nibbling at the game, which some of us dare not bite, of tampering with British freedom because of members of the Communist Party.

Commander Maitland: I believe that the hon. Member was referring to something which I said. If he will read my speech again, he will sec that it refers to "Spain."

Dr. King: I want to say at the outset that I believe the House should tackle the question before it in the spirit in which a former very distinguished Member of this House recently made his maiden speech in another place. He said that there is only one way of upholding democracy and that is by being democratic. This is a hard saying at a time when the party we are considering is a body which is anti-democratic and counter to everything we stand for.
On this side of the House we would yield to nobody in our defence of freedom. After all, political freedom and, to some extent, economic freedom is a fairly novel experience in the history of the people we represent in this House of Commons. I have had occasion to speak of the father of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, the late Keir Hardie, who was sacked, as his family were sacked, not so very long ago in English history for the crime of belonging to a trade union.

Commander Maitland: Now they are sacked for not belonging to a trade union.

Dr. King: I say with some pride that my uncle at the age of 45, with a family of four, was sacked by people whose political opinions were those of the opposite side of this House merely because he was using his rights as a trade unionist. It would be a grave danger if on this side of the House we wavered at all, for whatever specious reason, in our passionate defence of democratic freedom
I say to hon. Members opposite that there is always a very good reason for tampering with an unpopular opinion and for using force to crush it. I am quite certain that Nero had the best of specious reasons for burning the Christians. I am quite certain that Charles when he attempted to arrest five Members of this House of Commons, had very good reasons which would have commended themselves to quite a number of people on the opposite side of the House.
Fascism begins by the persecution of Communists and Jews. It goes on destroying Social Democrats, Liberals, Christians and even the wrong kind of Fascists, and it finishes by attacking Jehovah's Witnesses. Communism begins by attacking Fascists and it runs in reverse order through Liberals, Social Democrats, Trotskyites and even the wrong kind of Communists, and apparently finishes by imprisoning Jehovah's Witnesses. Franco, with whom we were asked to ally ourselves last week, went through the same pattern of Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Conservatives and finished by attacking Protestants and Royalists.
The view of hon. Members on this side of the House is that in a fight to preserve democracy in our world we must hesitate before we use any undemocratic method.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: May I interrupt the hon. Member? Do I understand that he is saying he would tolerate the appointment of a Fascist as headmaster?

Hon. Members: No.

Dr. King: I shall deal with what I will do in a moment. I want this House to take in its attitude to the Communist Party of this country, and to those members of the teaching profession who hold Communist Party views, the traditional view of a free, democratic people—" I hate your opinion, but will fight for your right to express it." The outrage that Fascist schoolmasters and Communist schoolmasters have perpetrated on education in the unfree parts of the world does not justify similar outrage, any more than the North Korean crimes against civilians justify the South Korean atrocities reported in our Press.
It is not easy to hold these views, especially in dealing with those who deny every liberty to opposing ideas, but I note with some dismay that in the panic against Communism the Fascists of the world are crawling out of their hide-outs. For instance, 2,000 Fascists assembled within the last two days in Rome, and even in our own country Fascists are beginning to rear their heads again.
I want to say a word of protest against the smears which have been cast this evening, particularly in the first speech, on the good name of the teaching profession.

Major Beamish: I cast no aspersions at all on the teaching profession as a whole, for which I have the deepest, utmost admiration. I hope that the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of apologising and withdrawing what he has just said.

Dr. King: When the hon. and gallant Member hears what I have to say, he will see that I am perfectly right in making this charge. The teaching profession would at once agree that anybody who used the privileged position of teaching the young to advance his own party political doctrine should be punished. I am quite certain that I speak for the whole of the teaching profession in saying that. The teacher's job is to provide the child with the instruments for acquiring knowledge, to teach him to think, to examine, to criticise and to form his own judgment. I say to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) that if we are to guard against insidious propaganda, both of the Right and of the Left, the teaching profession, in training the young folk of this country to think for themselves, are rendering an invaluable service in that fight.
Teachers are human beings and they err, but my own experience is that the teacher who holds very distinct political opinions would tend to lean over the other way rather than impose any of those political opinions on the children he teaches. If there were any evidence that Communist teachers have taught Communism in the classrooms, I am quite certain that the headmaster of the school would have dealt with it in the first place. I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) that if there was a Communist headmaster in a school he would not be able to do any of the things which it is feared he would do, because of the non-Communist staff surrounding him.
I remember once having to reprimand a young reactionary student master who gave a lesson on "Julius Caesar" and tried to make it a propaganda talk by identifying Julius Caesar, whom he liked, with Mussolini, and the noble Brutus, whom, strangely enough, he did not like, with Members of these benches. It was a bad lesson, and it was even bad propaganda for a bad cause, but he was a very raw lad. I assure hon. Members opposite, and on these benches also, that the teach-


ing profession is competent to do its own teaching job objectively in the classrooms.
The question of the security of tenure to members of the teaching profession is a serious one. It is within the recollection of members of the teaching profession that their tenure was not so secure a very few years ago. There still live members of that profession who lost promotion and lost their jobs, not because they were Communists, not even because they were Socialists, but because they wanted to go to chapel when the local parish council was the church.
In a Debate on the Education Act of 1901, a Member in this Chamber said that teachers were subject to irresponsible boards and if they went to church or chapel, if they played the organ or refused to do it, if they accepted the Eastern position—which Anglicans will understand—or they did not, they were liable to dismissal and had no appeal. I am quite certain that the teaching profession is not prepared in these days to hand over the right of dismissal to a local authority on political judgments of the calibre with which this Debate was opened.
It is worth recalling to the House that when I was a young grammar school master I was made more than uncomfortable by my employer because my wife stood as a Labour candidate for the borough council in the town in which I lived, and that I had to seek the protection——

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Dr. King: I had to seek the protection of my professional union when local Tories made false charges to my employer about what I taught their pupils. I say to the hon. Member for Hampstead that it would be a bad atmosphere to introduce into the schools of this country if we invited children to carry home to parents condemnations of the alleged political teachings of teachers in schools. The teacher is a human being as well as a member of a profession. As a citizen a teacher should have the full human rights of a citizen and, among these, should be the full civil rights that most

citizens in this country enjoy; the right to seek to serve his country or town in whatever capacity he feels called upon to perform it and the citizens think him fit to perform. He has by no means all the full civic rights of a citizen yet, but in these last years he has had the right to hold political views and to express them after his day's work is done.
I would tremble at the thought that any of those rights should be taken away from the teachers of this country, who are citizens as well as teachers. Teaching is at once an art, a science, and a vocation, and the best teachers I have known have included among them rank Tories and rabid Socialists, outside the classroom. It is only in a totalitarian State that we can find a Fascist science lesson or a Communist lesson in mathematics. If political maturity were to be the test of the lawyer, the doctor, the clergyman, the engineer, or the teacher, many would be sacked and reinstated according to the political complexion of the Government then in power. The Americans do a bit of this; Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin have done a lot of it. It is a sin against knowledge, it is an outrage against noble profesions and in some ways it may be called a sin against the Holy Ghost. Law is law, not Tory law, not Socialist law medicine is medicine, and education is education, whatever the totalitarians say.
I am one of those who view with dismay the attitude of Middlesex County Council in not promoting teachers if they are Communists, no matter how excellent they may be as professional teachers and members of the profession. I would support the punishment of a doctor if he refused medical aid to political opponents, but I would willingly put myself in the medical hands of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), whose political opinions I think are shocking.
In the same way I would punish the Communist teacher who taught Communist dectrines in the schools of a democratic State, but, as long as his professional competence was not in question, I would vigorously protest against his persecution by dismissal or victimisation. Power corrupts, and no power corrupts more than the power to take away a man's living merely because one does not like the way he votes, or speaks, or thinks as a free citizen in a society which millions


of men have died to keep a free society. I hope the Minister will express his disapproval of the reactionary and anti-libertarian persecution of the Middlesex County Council and I hope he will consult the professional organisations of the teaching profession with a view to protecting them against political persecution.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I am very happy to find that I am able to agree with a very considerable portion, at any rate, of the remarks made by the three hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate from the other side of the House. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) that we must keep our sense of proportion in discussing this problem and that the last thing we want is a witch hunt or the introduction of McCarthyism into the educational world or any other aspect of our life in this country.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Test Division (Dr. King), when he says that we wish to tolerate a variety of opinions to the last limit of what is tolerable, but I think that he has a little underestimated the difficulty of the situation. The trouble surely is, as my hon. Friend has said, not that we object in the least to a variety of opinion as such, but that the country at the moment happens to be in very great danger from the holders of those doctrines. Therefore, while I bear in mind the abjuration of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees to remember our sense of proportion, I would say that we cannot deal with the matter entirely on general principles along Liberal lines. That is my reservation on the hon. Member's speech, which I very much enjoyed.
I associate myself with the general tribute paid to the teaching profession by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Whatever may be the number of Communists within the teaching profession—it might be slightly more or slightly less than 2,000—we all understand that that is a very small proportion of the members of that great profession. Also, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) I am certain that an overwhelming majority, if not all Communist teachers, do not use their position in order directly to teach Communist doctrines. I have no doubt about that

being a fact. Their motive is another matter. What they would do if Communism was to establish itself here is another story.
The only point that really has not been made, and which does worry me-I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some observations upon it—is the opposite of that made by many hon. Members. The Debate has been very much on the question of whether or not teachers indulge in improper political propaganda in the classroom. I have no doubt whatever that in only an infinitesimal number of cases does that happen, but I think there is a certain danger in that very tradition of honour in the teaching profession for the opposite reason.
We have had a lot of talk tonight about the phrase "Communist propaganda," but no one has yet analysed what we mean by it. It seems to me that there are at present extremely few schools in which people are teaching the economic doctrines of Karl Marx. I wish there were more. I think it would be a good thing if more was taught both in schools and the universities about the economic doctrines of Karl Marx so that people would know more about what they were. What Communist propaganda means at the moment is not talking very much about Communism in a scientific sense, or even about Russia, but of talking a great deal of dangerous, bogus and oversimplified stuff about peace. That is the card the Communists are playing, and the great danger at the moment is that children may be got at by over-simplified propaganda about peace, and that the very tradition of honour of the profession may prevent teachers from countering that bogus propaganda. My fear is not that which some other hon. Members have felt.

10.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): We are concerned tonight with the code of honour and the integrity of the teaching profession. We are concerned also with the liberty of that profession, and I am quite certain that if many of the opinions expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) were put into legislative or administrative action,


there would be a grave feeling of distrust throughout the whole profession. As I listened to his speech, although he may not have intended to imply this feeling—I say this with great respect—I could not help feeling a sense of that great fear known at a certain period in the late 'thirties in Nazi Germany regarding the relations of the Nazi Government and the teaching profession.
There is really no telling where this kind of thing would stop if it were ever given credence by a Minister in any Government of any political party. After all, there are many of us who remember occasions when members of the Labour Party were stigmatised. One instance I recall of the moral stigmatising of a member of the Labour Party by an education committee. I am happy to recall that that particular individual is now a staff inspector. He was in those days an exceedingly successful teacher. There was no hint whatever of any propaganda being found in his lessons, and he has been, and still is, an extremely successful inspector. I understand that before the First World War the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), who has spoken in this Debate, took part in a bakers' strike meeting, and was later declared not to be a fit and proper person to be a teacher, because he was a member of the Labour Party. There is no telling where this kind of thing would end, and therefore I suggest that we are concerned with something completely fundamental to members of the teaching profession in discussing this subject tonight.
I now turn to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. He introduced a great many topics into what he had to say—atheism, Fascism, Communism, what Stalin said and what the Bishop of Chichester said. I did not in fact know about the Woodland Folk, and my curiosity has certainly been stimulated by what he said about that particular organisation. But when he went on to speak of the Bureau of Current Affairs, I confess I became more alert, because during the war I personally had a great deal to do with the director of that really excellent and patriotic organisation. I say categorically it is my opinion that there has been no political bias in any of the documents which that Bureau has published, either under another name during the war,

or since the war when it became the Bureau of Current Affairs.

Major Beamish: Oh!

Mr. Hardman: We owe a great debt of gratitude to the work done by A.B.C.A. during the war and we have derived great educational advantages from the publications issuing from the Bureau of Current Affairs since the war.
Many subjects were dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member, but the thing which is really serious is that no tithe of evidence has been given by any hon. Member speaking from the opposite side of the House which would enable my right hon. Friend, or myself, or a local authority, to take any action against a particular individual.

Mr. Nally: Even a Tory local authority.

Mr. Hardman: Any local authority, whether it is a Tory local authority or a Labour local authority. We have not had a tithe of evidence.
A number of questions were asked which I should now like to try to answer. As regards the members of the teaching profession who are also members of the Communist Party, we have no evidence at all. Nor do I consider it our duty to seek information on this point. In my opinion, the political views of teachers are their own private affair, so long as they do not use their position to propagate those views in the schools.
Now we come to the crux of this Debate. If any evidence of a teacher abusing his or her position were brought to my notice by anybody, either outside this House or in this House, then immediate investigation would take place. So far, however—and surely this must be regarded as a remarkable and significant fact—not a shred of evidence that this is happening has been brought to our notice at the Ministry of Education.

Major Beamish: Would the hon. Gentleman address himself to the text book "Inside the U.S.S.R." written by a well-known Communist, Mrs. Beatrice King, of which 25,000 copies are in circulation, and other Communist literature which is used by school teachers throughout the country in their current affairs lectures?

Mr. Hardman: I did not know that it was illegal for school teachers or adults in any profession in this country to read what they like. There is no evidence that, because teachers may read from Liberal pamphlets, pamphlets from the Tory Central Office or Transport House, or pamphlets about Russia written by Communists, they have allowed the information they have taken from them to influence their work.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that one of the test papers used in a classroom was one where a sentence had to be split up in a grammar lesson, and the sentence was:
It costs a lot to keep a king.
Does the Minister think that that is a good platform for anyone with Communist leanings to take advantage of in a classroom?

Mr. Hardman: If that is the only evidence that can be given of so-called Communist propaganda in the classroom, then Members of the Opposition have no case whatever tonight.

Mr. Nicholls: Does the Minister approve of that?

Mr. Hardman: As far as I know, that is a statement which may have been made at any period in English, or any other, history.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Is not that a quotation either from Shakespeare or another classic?

Mr. Hardman: I certainly approve of quotations from the classics, even if they happen to be quotations that deny my own faith or my own political beliefs. I should have thought that there was nothing at all harmful in a quotation of that kind, or any sentence of that kind, appearing in a grammar paper. I must say that if Members of the Opposition are afraid of that kind cc thing, then their case is an extremely weak one.
As far as the Ministry of Education is concerned, so long as a teacher carries out his professional duties as a teacher conscientiously, his loyalty and trustworthiness in relation to his professional duties as a teacher not to propogate his Communist views need not be called into question. It is not illegal for citizens of this country to be members of a political

party known as the Communist Party. If this House of Commons is to make new legislation which makes such a prohibition possible, then I certainly think that we have started on the downward path that will interfere with the great traditions of British liberty which are always being talked about by hon. Members opposite.
I was asked a specific question by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. That question concerned the recent action of the Middlesex County Council. I remind the House that the County Council decided that persons known to be members of the Communist or Fascist Parties, or associated with them, should be debarred from certain key teaching posts under their control. We recognise the strength of the case that can be made against the appointment of Communist or Fascist teachers on the ground that the Communist Party differs from other political parties in having for its ultimate aim the disruption of the democratic way of life; and that the children who are compelled by law to attend school should not, at an age when they are most susceptible to adult influence and not mature enough to detect propaganda, be exposed to the influence of teachers who are Communists.
Since they cannot be, and should not be, supervised all the time, teachers may have some opportunity for attempting to propagate their views, but people holding these views still enjoy the same general freedom as others, and we do not consider, particularly in view of the lack of evidence of this so-called abuse, that there is warrant for such a serious interference with the freedom of the individual teacher to hold any political views he likes that the Middlesex resolution will entail.
On the contrary, we believe that the Middlesex local education authority's proposal to debar from certain teaching posts persons known to be members of the Communist or Fascist parties, or known to be associated with either of them in such a way as to raise doubts about their reliability, may in practice be fraught with the most dangerous possibilities of abuse. Thus, although discrimination may now be confined to Communist or Fascist adherents, there is, in my opinion, a very serious danger that, before long, those of less extreme views on both Right or Left would find them-


selves proscribed. History, both past and contemporary, is not without its lessons of the dangers of heresy-hunting.
This Debate may have cleared the air in one respect. I believe it has certainly done so. Questions have been asked in this House about Communist infiltration into the schools. My right hon. Friend and myself have asked time and time again for factual evidence. This Debate has cleared the air, because, in fact, we have not had that factual evidence. The evidence we want, and the only evidence upon which we can act in a country which we can all claim adheres to democratic freedom, is proof that certain teachers, of any political opinions, are influencing the young minds in the class rooms and influencing them in such a way that they become adherents of a particular political party or creed, whatever it may be. Until that evidence is forthcoming, I claim that my right hon. Friend and myself have been taking the only just and democratic course in dealing with this problem.

Air Commodore Harvey: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he assure the House that, in his position as Parliamentary Secretary he has not received cases from his inspectors—serious, genuine cases?

Mr. Hardman: The hon. and gallant Member did raise the question of the training colleges and suggested that there were Communists who were members of the staffs of the training colleges. We get periodic reports from His Majesty's inspectors, and their inspections are extremely thorough. We have as yet had no proof whatever, or even the suggestion, that in the training colleges or in the schools there has been any evidence of training college teachers or teachers in the schools influencing students along party lines.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I want to make a very brief contribution. The point has been made that, because we do not put the medical profession and the legal profession under very careful examination as to any Communist tendency, we ought not to put the school teachers through a very stern test. I suggest that that is a rather dangerous outlook to take on this question, because

there is all the difference in the world between the doctor visiting one for a five minutes' visit, or a person visiting a solicitor's office for 10 minutes, and placing one's children under the control of a schoolmaster for several hours a day, during which time he has control of that child and that child's mind.
Whilst I have no desire to "witch hunt" or to bring about any dismissals, I suggest that the Minister of Education ought to impress upon the important members of that vital profession that their sheet must be cleaner than that of other professions because of the important hold they have of children at a most impressionable age.
The second point I wanted to make was in answer to suggestions made by hon. Members opposite, that all the victimisation which has gone on in the past has been from Tory controlled educational authorities alone. I wish to place on record the fact that in areas where we have Socialist controlled authorities, very much the same sort of pressure appears to have been brought to bear. But the fact that the two blacks are there does not make either a white. I would like it known that when I fought my first election in the Nelson and Colne Division, where they have had Socialist control for many years, I had the experience of a school teacher there having to come to the back door of my committee room offering to do work in a private capacity saying that he had to do it as surreptitiously as that because if his Tory leanings were known he feared the possible consequences regarding his job. I place that on record to balance up to some extent——

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I know precisely the period during which the hon. Gentleman was, in point of fact, a candidate for that constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for an hon. Member of this House to make an accusation against a local authority and to accuse it of being guilty of the gross illegality, for which penalties are provided, of threatening teachers because of their political sympathies?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Of course, if the hon. Member thinks so, he is entitled to say so.

Mr. Nicholls: I want to make my point perfectly clear. The teacher who came to the back door of my committee room had the feeling that he would be treated in such a way; that was the feeling impressed upon him through working in that particular area—whether justified or no, I do not know.
My last point is to come back to this particular question in the test paper. I think it is wrong, in a country where the whole basis of our constitution rests upon the monarchy, for a test paper to be allowed to go into the class-room for the eight years old with the sentence:
It costs a lot to keep a king.
We do not expect the Communist master to go into the school room waving a red flag or draw the hammer and sickle on the blackboard. They are much more cunning and subtle than that. I suggest that that particular sentence ought to be withdrawn from the test paper in order to take away their opportunity to put over their Communism under the guise of it being officially sponsored.

Mr. Mathers: Why does the hon. Gentleman give this par-

ticular sentence the wide publicity it will receive by being published in HANSARD?

Mr. Nicholls: If the publicity given to it will result in the Minister withdrawing the sentence from the test paper, then it will have been well worth while.

Mr. George Jeger: Would not the point be met by the substitution of the words:
Put not thy trust in princes,
which is also a Shakespearean quotation?

An Hon. Member: No, it is in the Psalms.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the opinion which he expressed tonight in relation to the Middlesex County Council——

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.